IN RE ROZELL LAROY MCLAUGHLIN JR MINOR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of ROZELL LAROY MCLAUGHLIN, JR., Minor. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED March 25, 2004 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 248721 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 00-395051 TAMELA EVETTE WILLIS, Respondent-Appellant, and ROZELL LAROY MCLAUGHLIN, SR., Respondent. Before: Zahra, P.J., and Saad and Schuette, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent 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), (g), (j), and (k)(i). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(A) and (E)(1)(b). I. FACTS Rozell is a child with significant medical needs. He has a seizure disorder, cerebral palsy, severe developmental delays and is a quadriplegic. Rozell tested positive for marijuana at birth and was placed into foster care when he was four months old after he was admitted to the hospital with a respiratory infection and an x-ray revealed seven old healing rib fractures and a fresh fractured femur. The hospital opined that the injuries were not accidental. Respondent was unsuccessful at completing the treatment plan set forth by the court. She never completed counseling to address issues of child abuse and domestic violence, failed to comply with drug screens, failed to provide documentation of a legal source of income, and did not attend any of Rozell’s medical appointments. Respondent did not appear at the termination hearing. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW -1- In order to terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been met by clear and convincing evidence. In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1993). Once the petitioner has established a statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court shall order termination of parental rights, unless the court finds from evidence on the whole record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The trial court’s decision is reviewed for clear error. Id. at 356-357. III. ANALYSIS The trial court did not clearly err in finding that § § 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I), now MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The child tested positive for marijuana at birth and was removed from the home when he was approximately four months old after it was discovered that he had several healing rib fractures and a fractured femur. Respondent never entered drug treatment, failed to maintain stable housing, and never addressed the issue of the child’s serious, unexplained injuries in counseling. Further, although there was evidence that respondent attempted to bond with the child, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the best interests of the child, especially considering the child’s significant special needs. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). 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.