IN RE POTTS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LILLIAN MICHELLE POTTS
and LORETTA MARIE POTTS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 19, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 253451
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-000176
CARMELLA ELAINE WELLS and GRADY
POTTS,
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Cooper and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order terminating their parental rights
to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(i),1 (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not commit clear error in finding that petitioner had established at least
one of the grounds for terminating respondents’ parental rights by clear and convincing evidence.
In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The condition that led to
the adjudication was Lillian’s positive test for cocaine at birth and respondent mother’s positive
test for cocaine following Lillian’s birth. In the approximately eighteen months that followed
Lillian’s birth, respondent mother tested positive for cocaine and alcohol on several occasions,
but denied that she abused substances. Further, in light of the evidence of drug abuse by both
parents, evidence that both children suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome, and evidence that it
would take a substantial amount of time to treat the substance abuse, the trial court did not
clearly err in finding that respondents failed to provide proper care and custody for their children
and that there was no reasonable expectation that they would be able to do so within a reasonable
time. There was also evidence that respondents’ drug and alcohol use placed their children at a
substantial risk of harm and that neither respondent took Lillian’s numerous medical issues
1
Subsection (i) applies to respondent mother only.
-1-
seriously. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner had established
the statutory grounds for termination of respondents’ parental rights.
Further, the record does not demonstrate that termination of both respondents’ parental
rights was contrary to the best interests of the children. Both children suffered from the affects
of fetal alcohol syndrome and required extra care and patience, with Lillian requiring a great deal
of extra attention. The children were progressing in foster care and were in a day care that could
handle their needs. While the children saw their parents weekly at supervised visitation and
recognized their parents, the children had never lived with their parents. Moreover, respondents
were given many chances to overcome their substance abuse issues and, in the face of lab reports
showing that each had positive results for cocaine and alcohol, they denied any substance use.
Finally, respondent father argues that the trial court erroneously assigned to him the
burden of proof regarding the best interest determination. To the extent that it appears that the
trial court assigned the burden of proof to respondent father, we find the error harmless where
the trial court considered the record as a whole and the evidence clearly did not support a finding
that termination was contrary to the best interest of the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
