IN RE BLAINE CHRISTIAN THOMPSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BLAINE CHRISTIAN
THOMPSON, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 8, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 249457
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-000268-NA
BLAIR DEANE THOMPSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JULIE CHRISTINE THOMPSON,
Respondent.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Griffin and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (g) and (l). 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 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent-appellant neither contests that his rights to another
child were terminated nor does he contest that he deserted this child for over ninety-one days.
Further, he readily admits in his brief on appeal that he abandoned this child because of his
incarceration and/or drug use and that he had significant substance abuse issues that prevented
him from caring for this child. In essence, respondent-appellant concedes that grounds for
termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) and (l) were established.
However, respondent-appellant contends the trial court erred when it found that he would
not be able to care for his child within a reasonable time, i.e., that there was insufficient evidence
to support termination pursuant to MCL 719A.19b(3)(g). We need not consider this because
proof of only one statutory ground is necessary to terminate parental rights. In re McIntyre, 192
-1-
Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). In any event, we reject respondent-appellant’s claim
that the court erred when it found that there was no reasonable expectation that respondentappellant would be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time.
Respondent-appellant has a long-term history of substance abuse that, despite being offered
services and participating in several rehabilitation programs, he has not been able to overcome.
A psychological evaluation concluded that even if respondent-appellant were to participate in the
services offered, the prognosis was poor. Moreover, at the time of termination respondentappellant was serving a sentence of two to fourteen years’ imprisonment. Even if we were to
accept respondent-appellant’s optimistic testimony that he was going to participate in a boot
camp that would ensure his release within six months, he still would not be in a position to
parent his child within a reasonable time considering the child’s age. Thus, the trial court did not
err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to his son.
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.
