IN RE HADLEY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of J.H. and J.H., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 17, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 239749
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-024740
GARY HADLEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PAMELA SCHNEIDER,
Respondent.
In the Matter of J.H. and J.H., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 240057
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-024740
PAMELA SCHNEIDER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GARY HADLEY,
Respondent.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Murphy and Cavanagh, JJ.
-1-
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant Gary Hadley appeals as of right and respondent-appellant Pamela
Schneider appeals as of delayed leave granted from the order of the trial court terminating their
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j). We affirm.
These consolidated appeals are being heard without oral argument. MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b).
The trial court did not err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondents-appellants have ongoing mental health problems that they
refuse to adequately address. These mental health problems caused deterioration of the family
structure to the extent that, at adjudication, the children were not attending school, respondentsappellants could not control the children and make them attend school, and the home was
cluttered and filthy. The conditions were never rectified to an extent that would have permitted
the children to return to respondents-appellants’ home in safety.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents-appellants’ parental
rights was clearly not in the best interests of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo
Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although the children desired very
much to return to their parents’ care, the safety and well-being of the children is paramount. It
cannot be said that termination was clearly not in their best interests, and the trial court therefore
did not err in terminating respondents-appellants’ parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
