IN RE ZICKAFOOSE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KATELYN CHRISTINE
ZICKAFOOSE and ETHAN EDWARD
ZICKAFOOSE, minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 15, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252649
St Joseph Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-000484-NA
JEFF LYNN ZICKAFOOSE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MEREDITH ZICKAFOOSE,
Respondent.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Gage and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to his minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We affirm. This case is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory ground for termination was
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). The primary issue raised at trial was respondent-appellant’s failure to
submit clean drug screens as required by court order. Although respondent-appellant’s positive
screens for morphine and heroin-like derivatives could obtain from the prescription medication
that he took for pain, he produced absolutely no evidence to explain the cocaine-positive screens
save for his testimony that the screen results were simply “wrong.” Moreover, he failed to
appear the “vast majority” of the time and submit to drug screens as required. Although
respondent-appellant testified that he missed certain screens because he was out of town, he
-1-
nevertheless admitted that he did not appear for some of the screens because the tests indicated
that he took illicit substances, and the tests “hurt [him worse]” than failing to appear all together.
In addition, although respondent-appellant completed parenting classes, he failed to
complete homework assignments and his participation was considered not “genuine.” With
regard to weekly visitations, he interacted well with his children at the outset and appeared for
scheduled visitations. However, he then missed two visits, which, according to the FIA
caseworker, caused the children to engage in severe acting-out behaviors. Moreover, when the
children came into protective custody, Katelyn suffered from very serious dental problems,
which were so pervasive the child had to endure extensive surgery to rectify the condition.
Notwithstanding, three weeks after surgery, respondent-appellant purchased sweets for the child
in complete contravention of her physician’s directives.
Considering the evidence presented upon the whole record, the trial court did not clearly
err in finding that respondent-appellant failed to provide proper care and custody for his children
and that there was no reasonable expectation that he would do so within a reasonable time.
Further, the evidence did not demonstrate that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was contrary to the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights to his minor children.
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.
