IN RE POWERS MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of J.F.P., a/k/a F.J.S., and C.P., a/k/a M.M.A.S., Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED April 15, 2004 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 250422 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 02-409011 ANN POWERS, a/k/a MELANIE ANN STUDINGER, Respondent-Appellant, and ADNAN HAMDAN, Respondent-Not Participating. Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Murphy and Smolenski, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j). We affirm. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination in MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence. See MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). The principal condition that led to adjudication was respondent's untreated mental illness. Respondent suffered from numerous fixed, paranoid delusions that dominated her thinking and caused her to severely neglect her children. While she improved on medication, she soon ceased taking medications and checked herself out of a psychiatric hospital against medical advice. Respondent argues that she was not provided with new referrals for mental health care or a reasonable time to comply with her treatment plan. We disagree. A prerequisite for respondent's successful completion of her treatment plan was taking her medications. This she steadfastly refused to do. She also was unwilling to enter inpatient treatment or to follow -1- through with outpatient treatment, turning down offers of help from family and health care professionals. Her testimony and behavior in court unequivocally demonstrated that she was not sufficiently grounded in reality to be able to parent her children. Other testimony and evidence supported this conclusion. Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent's parental rights was clearly not in the children's best interests. See MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although the testimony indicated that the children loved their mother, her unwillingness to take psychotropic medications placed the children at risk of further neglect and serious harm in her care. The children also exhibited signs of stress after visitations with respondent. They need permanence and a stable home, which respondent cannot provide. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating her 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.