IN RE THOMAS MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of COREY THOMAS, CHRISTY THOMAS, ROOSEVELT THOMAS III, JACOB BAILEY THOMAS, and PHILLIP MICHAEL THOMAS, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED August 19, 2004 Petitioner-Appellee, v DENISE JEAN THOMAS, a/k/a DENISE JEAN COTTON, No. 252491 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 91-292631 Respondent-Appellant, and ROOSEVLET THOMAS, JR., Respondent. In the Matter of COREY THOMAS, CHRISTY THOMAS, ROOSEVELT THOMAS III, JACOB BAILEY THOMAS, and PHILLIP MICHAEL THOMAS, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 252714 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 91-292631 ROOSEVELT THOMAS, JR., Respondent-Appellant, and -1- DENISE JEAN THOMAS, a/k/a DENISE JEAN COTTON, Respondent. Before: Neff, P.J., and Smolenski and Zahra, JJ. MEMORANDUM. In these consolidated appeals, respondent Denise Thomas appeals as of right and respondent Roosevelt Thomas appeals by delayed leave granted from the order of the trial court terminating their parental rights to their minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (i), and (j). We affirm. Respondents contend that the trial court erred in finding that clear and convincing evidence supported termination of their parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). Contrary to respondents’ contentions, ample evidence existed on the record to support the trial court’s decision. At the time of adjudication, respondent mother was mentally ill and using illegal drugs, and this affected her ability to properly care for the children. Respondent father was incarcerated periodically, making him unavailable to care for the children. In addition, his absence triggered episodes of drug use and mental illness by respondent mother. During the more than three years that the children were in foster care, respondent father was repeatedly incarcerated and respondent mother repeatedly used illegal drugs and had episodes of mental illness severe enough to require hospitalization. The trial court, therefore, did not err in finding that these 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). Respondent mother also contends that the trial court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence to terminate her parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) and (3)(j). We disagree. Sufficient evidence existed on the record to support termination of respondent mother’s parental rights under these subsections as well. At the age of fourteen, respondent mother gave birth to a child in 1991, who tested positive for drugs. Her parental rights to this child were terminated in 1992. Additionally, there was sufficient evidence that the children would be harmed if returned to respondent mother. Each time the children were returned to her care, respondent mother quickly became overwhelmed by the stress of caring for her children and respondent father’s repeated incarcerations, lapsing into drug use which would lead to episodes of mental illness requiring hospitalization. During these episodes, respondent mother often had amnesia and sometimes did not even remember she had children. The trial court, therefore, did not err in finding that these statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, supra. Respondents also contend that the trial court erred in determining that termination was not contrary to the best interests of the children. We disagree. While the children were in respondents’ care, respondent father repeatedly became incarcerated while respondent mother repeatedly lapsed into episodes of mental illness and illegal drug use. Therefore, termination of -2- respondents’ parental rights was not contrary to the best interests of the children. 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Affirmed. /s/ Janet T. Neff /s/ Michael R. Smolenski /s/ Brian K. Zahra -3- MCL

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.