IN RE GRANT/MONCURE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of D.V.I.G., E.V.I.G., S.L.D.M., and
T.S.E.M., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 11, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 251070
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-391515
ERNESTINE DENISE PAYTON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MELVIN HENRY GRANT and ROBERT
MONCURE, a/k/a BOBBY MONCURE,
Respondents.
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)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(A) and (E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that 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). The conditions that led to adjudication were respondentappellant’s neglect and abuse of the children. The evidence clearly and convincingly
demonstrated that respondent-appellant failed to comply fully with the parent-agency agreement.
After more than three years of intervention, respondent-appellant never reached a point where
she could parent her children with consistency and stability. At the time of termination,
respondent-appellant’s home still was not prepared for the children; she did not have
employment; and she failed to establish that she was living a drug-free lifestyle. Further,
respondent-appellant did not attend the court ordered counseling for any appreciable period.
-1-
Because respondent-appellant did not participate and/or benefit from the services offered, the
conditions that led to adjudication continued to exist at the time of termination and there was no
reasonable likelihood that the conditions would be rectified within a reasonable time.
Further, the evidence did not show that 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). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights to her 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.
