IN RE HOOVER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KELLIE LYNN HOOVER and
DAWNNA JOY-MARIE HOOVER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 8, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 252496
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-027627
YVONNE HOOVER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GERALD DONALD HOOVER II,
Respondent.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Gage and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the order of the trial court terminating her
parental rights to her minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent-appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding that clear and
convincing evidence supported termination of her parental rights. We disagree. Contrary to
respondent-appellant’s contentions, ample evidence existed on the record to support the trial
court’s decision. At the time of adjudication, respondent-appellant was homeless and
unemployed and had unresolved mental health issues. Although respondent-appellant made
some effort to remedy this situation she eventually failed. At the time of termination respondentappellant was still unemployed and homeless, had not entirely addressed her mental health
issues, and still seemed to lack understanding of the basic needs of children, including shelter,
stability, and permanence. The trial court, therefore, did not err in finding that the statutory
grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
-1-
The trial court also did not err in determining that termination was not contrary to the best
interests of the children. While in respondent-appellant’s care, the children lived in deplorable
conditions and one child suffered from developmental delays that were in large part the fault of
lack of instruction rather than related to any physical or mental disability. Termination of
respondent-appellant’s parental rights was not contrary to the best interests of the children. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
