IN RE ELIZABETH R JARVIS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DANIEL GLEN DOUGHERTY,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 15, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 251195
Presque Isle Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-000005-NA
SUE ELLEN JARVIS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BRIAN DOUGHERTY,
Respondent.
In the Matter of ELIZABETH R. JARVIS, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 251197
Presque Isle Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-000004-NA
SUE ELLEN JARVIS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
-1-
GRANT JUNIOR HAVEN,
Respondent.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Jansen and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right, in these consolidated cases, from the trial court
orders terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(m). We
affirm.
Respondent-appellant concedes that the statutory ground for termination of parental
rights was established by clear and convincing evidence. The only issue before us is whether the
evidence showed that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the
children’s best interests. A court’s decision regarding best interests is reviewed for clear error.
In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
While there was evidence indicating that respondent-appellant was able to parent the
older child, the trial court relied on the psychological testimony and evidence concerning
respondent-appellant’s violent temper and blackouts, as well as her poor impulse control, poor
decision-making, and tendency to engage in harmful relationships. For instance, respondentappellant had intended to marry an incarcerated sex offender who would live with her children.
The trial court also found concerns regarding substance abuse. This evidence indicating the
potential for harm to the children weighed against the children’s best interests. In addition, there
was no evidence of strong bonding. The evidence on the record did not show that the
termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 356-357. Giving regard to the special opportunity
of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it, we are not left
with a firm and definite conviction a mistake was made. See MCR 2.613(C); In re Miller, 433
Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
