IN RE WEEKS/SNYDER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MICHAEL WEEKS, JOSHUA
SNYDER, ANTHONY SNYDER, ANDREA
SNYDER, SAMANTHA SNYDER, and
MATTHEW SNYDER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 13, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 251442
Clinton Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-016069-NA
JAMES SNYDER and LACY SNYDER,
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Jansen and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondents appeal as of right from the trial court’s order terminating their parental
rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (b)(iii), (g), (j), and (l).
We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (b)(iii), (g), and
(j) were each established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to both respondents.
MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). The evidence indicated
that the children were repeatedly hit with a stick and a belt, and that the paternal grandmother
admitted using a yard-long stick to “swat” the children. Respondents also admitted that they
taped the children with duct tape to restrain them. The trial court did not clearly err in finding
that respondents used discipline that was inappropriate, frequent and excessive.
In addition, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(l) was established by
clear and convincing evidence with respect to respondent father. As the trial court observed, it
was undisputed that respondent father’s parental rights to three older children were previously
terminated in 1994. See In re Snyder, 223 Mich App 85; 566 NW2d 18 (1997). To the extent
the trial court also relied on § 19b(3)(l) as an additional basis for terminating the parental rights
of respondent mother, who was not the mother of the children at issue in Snyder, supra, this error
was harmless, given that the court properly found that other grounds for termination existed. In
re Powers, 244 Mich App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472 (2000).
-1-
Contrary to what respondents argue, the record does not indicate that petitioner failed to
offer appropriate services in order to seek reunification. Although petitioner initially
contemplated proceeding toward termination without offering services, a treatment plan was
subsequently developed and services were provided. It was only after it became apparent that
respondents were not benefiting from the services that termination was requested.
Finally, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent father’s parental rights
was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
350; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although respondent father claims that there were “bonds of love
and affection between the parents and the children,” the trial court did not clearly err in finding
otherwise. Id. at 353. Further, the court found that the children “expressed aggressiveness,
hatred toward those who abuse[d] them, and . . . are among the most difficult that those in the
system have had to work with.” The court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights
to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
