IN RE AUBREY SANCHEZ MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AUBREY SANCHEZ, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 8, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 249042
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-113290-NA
MISTI BURGESS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MICHAEL SNYDER,
Respondent.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Griffin and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j). We
affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I), now MCR 3.977(J); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The principal condition that led to
adjudication was respondent-appellant leaving her young child with a fourteen-year-old
caregiver in an inappropriate home and not having a safe and stable home for the child. The
child was thereafter in the temporary custody of the court for nineteen months and efforts were
being made for reunification. However, during that nineteen-month period, respondent-appellant
had moved frequently and testified that she feared that another move in April, 2002 would cause
her to lose custody of her son. The evidence established that respondent-appellant disappeared
from April 5, 2002, until the beginning of January 2003. She later testified that she had given up
on the child during this period. Although she made minor attempts to leave at least one message
with the FIA worker during this period of time to let her son know that she loved him, she did
not leave any contact information regarding her whereabouts or even a telephone number. At the
time of the permanent custody hearing, respondent-appellant was living at Job Corps and
indicated that she was getting her life in order. Her child, who had been removed from her care
-1-
when he was nine months old, was now close to three and a half years old and had not seen
respondent-appellant for a year. This evidence established that respondent-appellant had
deserted the child for ninety-one days, had not sought custody during this period, and was unable
to provide stable housing for the child. Moreover, the conditions that caused the child to come
within the court’s jurisdiction, including the lack of suitable housing, had not been rectified and
there was no reasonable likelihood that they would be rectified within a reasonable time
considering the child’s age. Respondent-appellant asked the trial court to give her a chance, but
the court stated that based on the child’s age at the time he was taken into temporary custody, it
was too late for the mother to now claim that she may be getting her life in order. We do not
find that the trial court erred in this determination.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The child deserved permanency, and it was too late for
the mother to return and claim that she was now getting her life in order. Thus, the trial court did
not clearly err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the minor child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
