IN RE BLUER/REMINGTON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of J.A.R., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 10, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 251573
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-390966
SHAWN MICHAEL REMINGTON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SCHANTELL JEAN BLUER, a/k/a SCHANTELL
JEAN LASH, and MARK ALLAN BLUER,
Respondents.
In the Matter of B.R.B., C.M.B., and J.A.R.,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
SCHANTELL JEAN BLUER, a/k/a SCHANTELL
JEAN LASH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
-1-
No. 251579
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-390966
SHAWN MICHAEL REMINGTON and MARK
ALLAN BLUER,
Respondents.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Jansen and Saad, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents-appellants appeal as of right from the trial
court order terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i),
(g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly 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). Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondentsappellants’ parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In
re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Respondent-appellant Remington did not adequately address the requirements of his
parent/agency agreement. His employment and housing situation throughout the case were
unsuitable and unstable. Moreover, after three years of services, his therapist determined that
respondent-appellant’s progress was very slow and that he was in need of more counseling. In
addition, his visitation was minimal and sporadic. Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err
in terminating his parental rights. See In re Trejo Minors, supra.
Respondent-appellant Bluer did not adequately brief her issues on appeal. It is
insufficient for respondent-appellant to merely announce her position and leave it up to this
Court to discover and rationalize the basis for her claims and then search for authority to sustain
or reject her position. Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243; 577 NW2d 100 (1998). However, a
review of the record reveals that respondent-appellant Bluer’s consistent pattern of failing to
protect her children was a condition that persisted throughout the case and threatened the well
being of her children. In addition, because petitioner did not seek termination on the basis of
new or different circumstances, the trial court properly admitted hearsay evidence pursuant to
MCR 3.977(G)(2). Accordingly, the trial court also properly terminated respondent-appellant
Bluer’s parental rights. See In re Trejo Minors, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Henry William Saad
-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.
