IN RE HAMMOND MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AMANDA HAMMOND,
SANDRA HAMMOND, ANDREW HAMMOND,
and JONATHAN HAMMOND, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 17, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
No. 249251
Midland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-001467-NA
v
ARTHUR HAMMOND and SANDRA
HAMMOND,
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Saad and Bandstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
As is their right, respondents appeal from a trial court order that terminated their parental
rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established the statutory
grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich
331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). When they were removed from respondents’ home, the
children were between five and twelve years old. Sadly, the children were unable to take care of
their own basic sanitary needs, including brushing their teeth, bathing, wiping themselves after
going to the bathroom, or eating with utensils. Trash and junk covered the inside and outside of
respondents’ house, evidence showed maggots, a rat and mice inside the home, and the house
had no hot water and no workable bathroom. The parents kept a dog tied up on the property and
evidence showed that the dog bit at least one of the children. Some of the children had serious
medical problems, and all of the children had significant dental problems. The children also
suffered emotional problems and educational assessments showed that they tested below
average.
Reports from psychological examinations indicate that both parents had intellectual
limitations, and evidence showed that the parents did not appreciate that they must protect their
children from harm, whether from bullying by neighborhood children, bites from their dog, or
molestation by an adult neighbor. The mother appeared to have difficulty relating to her children
at their chronological age and continued to think of and treat them as babies, picking them up
-1-
and crying when she saw them. The parents focused on their own problems, not the welfare of
their children, and they repeatedly blamed their plight on petitioner and others.
Throughout the proceedings, the court clearly articulated its expectations for the parents
to retain their parental rights. The trial judge told the parents that they must clean up their house
to make it safe for the children and remove the dog that bit one of the children. However, the
parents did not clean up the outside of their home, they refused to admit the caseworker to
examine the inside of the home, and they removed one dog but replaced it with three new dogs
and a pig. Despite admonitions from the trial judge, the parents repeatedly discussed
inappropriate and sometimes violent issues with the children during visits, including their own
medical problems, their personal difficulties in handling the termination proceedings, and the
father’s detailed description of killing the family dog. On the basis of this and other, ample
evidence, the court correctly found that the parents could not provide proper care or custody
within a reasonable time because, through the termination process, the parents, unfortunately,
“dug in their heels,” disregarded virtually every court order, and made no progress toward
making a safe and sanitary home for the children.
The court also correctly found that there is a reasonable likelihood that the children will
be harmed if they are returned to the parents’ home. Indeed, the parents agree that the children
would be harmed, but take the unrealistic and telling position that petitioner is at fault. This is
inconsistent with the record. Sadly, the parents did not listen to what the court told them that
they needed to do, including taking responsibility for themselves and doing what was needed to
be reunited with the children.
Further, the evidence failed to show that termination was clearly not in the best interests
of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Instead, based on substantial evidence, the court found that termination was clearly in the best
interests of the children. Unfortunately for the children and for the parents, these parents could
not or would not provide for the children’s basic needs and the children would be at serious risk
of harm if they were returned to their parents.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
-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.
