IN RE DICKSON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of F.D. and D.L.D., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 15, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 248507
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-371016
STEPHANIE DICKSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
VICTOR SHUFFORD,
Respondent,
and
JOHN DOE,
Not Participating.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Murphy and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
Respondent-appellant argues that her due process rights were denied when the trial court
found irrelevant the question whether petitioner had evidence that respondent’s mental illness
actually affected her parenting ability. Custody is a liberty interest, and due process requires
clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for termination. In re Trejo Minors, 462
Mich 341, 356; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondents also have significant procedural due
process rights in termination hearings. In re Vasquez, 199 Mich App 44, 46-50; 501 NW2d 231
-1-
(1993). However, respondent-appellant does not claim she was denied the opportunity to present
evidence of her ability to care for the children.
Mere speculation of future neglect based on a respondent’s mental condition is an
insufficient ground for termination. In re Hulbert, 186 Mich App 600, 605; 465 NW2d 36
(1990). However, in the present case, respondent-appellant admittedly drove dangerously with
her children in the car and suffered hallucinations. She pursued mental health care only
sporadically and failed to find stable, suitable housing. Although failure to comply with a court
order cannot be the sole ground for termination, In re Miller, 182 Mich App 70, 83; 451 NW2d
576 (1990), failure to comply with a treatment plan is evidence of neglect, In re JK, 468 Mich
202, 214; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). Further, expert reports opined that respondent-appellant could
not consistently provide adequate care and custody, regardless of her love for her children. In its
oral opinion, the trial court noted the driving incident and hallucinations and did not rely solely
on respondent-appellant’s failure to consistently attend mental health sessions and take
prescribed medication.
The evidence established that respondent-appellant had failed to provide proper care and
custody and was not likely to do so in a reasonable time, and harm was likely if the children were
returned, 712A.19b(3)(j). See MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161
(1989). Furthermore, the evidence did not establish that termination was contrary to the
children’s best interests. Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating respondentappellant’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
