IN RE THOMPSON MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of L.M.T. and I.J.T., Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED April 15, 2004 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 251380 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 01-399830 ISAAC JAMES THOMPSON, Respondent-Appellant, and AMANDA VIRGINIA BROOKINS, Respondent. Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Murphy and Smolenski, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights to the minor children under MCLA 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. The trial court did not clearly err in finding the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. See MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent-appellant failed to make any effort to rectify the conditions that led to the adjudication, which included the children’s exposure to drug activity and deplorable housing conditions. He did not comply with any portion of the treatment plan, failing to maintain regular contact with the children, submit documentation of participation in a substance abuse program, submit to the majority of required drug screens, and failing most of those submitted. Further, the evidence did not that show termination of respondent-appellant’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 children enjoyed the few visits respondent-appellant did make and originally seemed bonded with him, once parental visitation -1- ceased the children’s behavior problems improved considerably. Moreover, the children were thriving and voiced a preference to remain in their current placement. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’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.