IN RE ADKINS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LE’CALVIS JACKSON, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 19, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 253570
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-027275-NA
VERA JACKSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BENJAMIN JONES,
Respondent.
In the Matter of VONTAYSHA JACKSON, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 253682
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-027274-NA
VERA JACKSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANTHONY BEE,
Respondent.
-1-
In the Matter of RAY DARNELL ADKINS and
VERAISHIONA ADKINS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 253685
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-027276-NA
VERA JACKSON,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Cooper and Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court
order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i),
(g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds for termination
of parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The children were made temporary court
wards after three-year-old Ray’s day care providers noticed marks on his body consistent with
abuse on more than one occasion. Respondent-appellant complied with services immediately,
and after six months of counseling, engaging in a parent mentor program, and completing
parenting classes, the children were returned to her in January 2002. On February 8, 2002, the
children were removed again after Ray’s day care providers reported marks on his body, and
evidence at a hearing indicated that respondent-appellant beat Ray with a broomstick.
Respondent-appellant became severely ill in May 2002, and became unable to
meaningfully participate in services. She was sentenced in February 2003 to jail on her plea of
no contest to charges of second-degree child abuse for a previous incident in November 2000 in
which Ray’s feet were burned, and was released from jail on June 29, 2003. Thus, she did not
participate in services for well over a year. Over two years elapsed between the October 1, 2001,
adjudication and the December 2003 termination hearing.
The evidence showed that, although respondent-appellant was re-engaged in services at
the time of the termination hearing, her prior six-month engagement in services did not result in
change in her disciplinary methods. While courts are reluctant to interfere with parents’
discipline of their children, in this case respondent-appellant’s discipline constituted abuse.
Respondent-appellant did not feel that severely whipping the children was wrong. The trial court
did not err in determining that respondent-appellant failed to provide proper care or custody of
-2-
the children by physically abusing them, and that the children were likely to be abused again in
the foreseeable future if placed with respondent-appellant.
Further, the evidence failed to show that termination of respondent-appellant’s 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). The evidence showed that Le’Calvis and
Vontaysha were bonded to respondent-appellant and wanted to return to her. The younger
children, Ray and Veraishiona, were not bonded with respondent-appellant. The testimony of
respondent-appellant’s and the children’s counselor clearly showed that the children, particularly
Le’Calvis and Vontaysha, needed immediate permanence. Le’Calvis was not attached to any
adult, and Vontayasha suffered hallucinations and suicidal ideations. Given the uncertainty of
the children ever being able to permanently return to respondent-appellant, respondentappellant’s past failure to benefit from services, her continued opinion that her manner of
whipping was not abusive, and the length of time the children had already been in care, the trial
court’s finding regarding the children’s best interests was not clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-3-
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.
