IN RE CRUTCHER/SMITH MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DONSHA’ JOHNTAYE
CRUTCHER, RENEE RENYL CRUTCHER,
SHANTE LEE CRUTCHER, DONTA’E J.
CRUTCHER, and JENEE DYAN SMITH, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 24, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
MIA LAVERNA PERRY, a/k/a MIA LAVERN
PERRY, MIA LAVERNE PERRY, and MIA LA
VERNE PERRY,
No. 251251
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-411599
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOHN B. CRUTCHER,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Cooper and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by delayed leave granted from the order of the trial court
terminating her parental rights to her minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j).
We affirm.
Contrary to respondent-appellant’s arguments, ample evidence existed on the record to
support the trial court’s decision. On two different occasions one of the children was diagnosed
with sexually transmitted diseases. Respondent-appellant failed to pursue the necessary ongoing
treatment for the child and failed to have the other children examined for possible similar
conditions. When the infected child told respondent-appellant that respondent father had been
sexually abusing her for two years, respondent-appellant failed to give any credence to the
allegations. Regardless of the fact that the child later recanted the statements, respondentappellant should have assured that the child received the necessary medical and psychological
treatment.
-1-
Respondent-appellant took no steps to address these issues or to otherwise comply with
the directives of the trial court. Instead, respondent-appellant continued to place the interests of
respondent father above those of the children. When respondent father escaped from custody,
respondent-appellant harbored him in the family home and also allowed drugs and guns to be
brought into the home. In violation of court order, respondent-appellant repeatedly visited the
children and took the children to visit respondent father in prison. The trial court, therefore, 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).
The trial court also properly determined that termination was not contrary to the best
interests of the children. While in respondent-appellant’s care, the children were exposed to
dangerous situations involving drugs, guns, and a fleeing felon. Respondent-appellant took no
steps to rectify the situation in which the children were living and repeatedly violated that trial
court’s orders regarding contact with the children. Termination of respondent-appellant’s
parental rights was not contrary to the best interests of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re
Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
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.
