IN RE GARRISON JAMES DAVIS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of GARRISON JAMES DAVIS,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 23, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 250732
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-497231-NA
ROBYN DAVIS DEPEAL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JAMES R. FLAUNDERS,
Respondent.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Saad and Schuette, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court’s termination of her parental
rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612
NW2d 407 (2000); MCR 3.977(J). The adjudicating conditions remained since respondentappellant was not yet able to provide a home environment that was fit and appropriate.
Respondent-appellant admitted to feeling overwhelmed by the day-to-day responsibilities of
caring for the minor child. Sadly, her response to this stressful feeling was to behave in the same
abusive fashion practiced by her own mother. Furthermore, respondent-appellant permitted her
mother to have contact with the minor child despite her own admission that such contact was
detrimental to the child and in direct violation of the no-contact rule imposed by the case worker.
Respondent-appellant attempted to justify this behavior by stating she needed her mother’s help,
but this behavior highlights the failure of respondent-appellant to employ the lessons learned
from years of services. There was no reasonable expectation that the adjudicating conditions
would be rectified within a reasonable time.
-1-
For similar reasons, there was also a failure by respondent-appellant to provide proper
care or custody for the child. Respondent-appellant’s argument that she could be an appropriate
parent if provided sufficient support is not supported by the evidence. According to the
evaluating psychologist, respondent-appellant would not be able to properly parent the minor
child within the foreseeable future. This psychologist also expressed doubt that respondentappellant’s “tortured” relationship with her mother would ever end, and respondent-appellant
herself admitted that she was unable to stand up to her mother. It was not the lack of services
that led to respondent-appellant’s failure to properly parent the minor child; it was respondentappellant’s failure to break the vicious cycle of abuse that had marked her own childhood.
Lastly, 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). Despite the existence of a
strong and loving bond between the minor child and respondent-appellant, the minor child
needed stability and a nurturing environment.
Affirmed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.