IN RE GROSS/DIXON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of THOMAS DIXON II, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 7, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254283
Mecosta Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-004358-NA
THOMAS DIXON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JADA GROSS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of OLIVIA GROSS and THOMAS
DIXON II, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254296
Mecosta Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-004358-NA
JADA K. GROSS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
THOMAS DIXON,
Respondent.
Before: Donofrio, P.J. and White and Talbot, JJ.
-1-
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order
terminating their parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). Because the trial court
did not clearly err in finding clear and convincing evidence for termination of parental rights, and
termination was not clearly contrary to the children’s best interests, 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). The trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous if the reviewing
court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In re Terry, 240
Mich App 14, 21-22; 610 NW2d 563 (2000). The primary conditions of adjudication were
respondents’ medical neglect of the minor child Thomas, who suffers from hydrocephalus and
cerebral palsy and requires a great deal of intervention and ongoing medical attention, as well as
their lack of suitable housing. Problems in the residence included filthy conditions and domestic
violence that was witnessed by Olivia. At age three, Olivia was morbidly obese.
Although the parent-agency agreement required respondents to participate promptly and
fully in the medical and educational appointments for both children, the evidence established that
they did not consistently do so. Both respondents missed a substantial number of medical
appointments for Thomas and failed to perform Thomas’ physical therapy consistently. Clearly
their inability to meet the medical needs of Thomas persisted more than one hundred and eightytwo days after the initial order of disposition. Respondent mother’s failure to attend a nutritional
appointment, a doctor’s appointment, and an educational meeting for Olivia in the months
preceding the termination hearing also evidences her continuing inability to meet the needs of
this child. To be sure, the record is replete with excuses for non-attendance and lapses of
attention on respondents’ part, but the excuses are neither reasonable considering the needs of
the children nor persuasive given the fact that the parents are unemployed for the most part.
Both parents continued to lack suitable housing as well. Respondent father resided with
various friends and relatives throughout this matter and lived with an aunt and uncle at the time
of the termination proceedings. Respondent mother obtained physically suitable housing, but
allowed the presence of numerous persons, including her sister, Angel Burhans, whose
participation in domestic violence witnessed by Olivia was one of the reasons the children were
initially placed in care. Ms. Burhans’ daughter, who had assaulted her grandmother with a knife
and in another incident backed the minor children into a corner with a knife, also frequented the
premises. Under these circumstances, the trial court was justified in concluding that the home
was not safe for the children.
Moreover, the evidence offered little basis to conclude that these conditions would be
rectified in the reasonable future. Both respondents’ failure to attend to the medical and
educational needs of their children during these proceedings suggests that they will continue
similarly in the future. Respondent mother clearly verbalized that she was frustrated by Thomas’
needs and requested that her visitation time with him be reduced because of those frustrations.
Testimony that respondents demonstrated little or no benefit from over a year of intensive
preventive services prior to the filing of the petition in this matter also suggests little likelihood
of improvement in the reasonable future. The trial court did not clearly err by finding clear and
convincing evidence that the conditions of adjudication continued to exist and there was no
-2-
reasonable likelihood that they would be rectified in the reasonable future.
712A.19b(3)(c)(i).
MCL
Termination of the parental rights of both respondents was also warranted under MCL
712A.19b(3)(g). Respondents both failed to provide proper care and custody for Thomas by
neglecting his medical needs. Respondent mother further failed to provide proper care and
custody for both children by exposing them to domestic violence and allowing them to live in
filthy conditions. The same evidence that established that the continuing conditions of
adjudication concerning both respondents would not likely be rectified in the reasonable future
equally demonstrates their inability to provide proper care and custody for the children within a
reasonable time considering their ages. Although the living conditions were ameliorated, we
note that respondents’ failure to comply with the parent agency agreement requiring prompt and
full participation in all medical appointments and educational meetings for both children is
evidence of their inability to provide proper care and custody. In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 214; 661
NW2d 216 (2003).
On appeal, respondent mother cites testimony suggesting that she could meet the needs of
Olivia if she were not burdened with the substantial special needs of Thomas. In fact, the worker
testified that respondents could meet the needs of the children, absent any special needs, with
continuous services and in a minimal fashion. However, respondents both, after participating in
voluntary services prior to the filing of the petition in this matter, declined further services with
the exception of Early On, which was apparently continued to avoid protective services
involvement. In light of all of this evidence, the trial court did not clearly err by finding a
reasonable likelihood that respondent mother would be unable to provide proper care and
custody for Olivia in the reasonable future considering her age.
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination was not clearly
contrary to the best interests of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5). Thomas has demonstrated vast
improvements in his foster care placement. The foster parents wish both children to be placed
with them permanently. Determination of a child’s best interests may include consideration of
the availability of suitable alternative homes. In re Mathers, 371 Mich 516, 530; 124 NW2d 878
(1963); In re Futch, 144 Mich App 163, 170; 375 NW2d 375(1984). Particularly considering
that respondents have demonstrated their inability to meet Thomas’ medical needs, we are left
with no impression that the trial court made a mistake by finding that termination was not clearly
contrary to his best interests. In re Terry, supra at 21-22. The trial court also did not clearly err
by finding that termination of respondent mother’s parental rights was not contrary to the best
interests of Olivia. Olivia was morbidly obese when she entered care and is now at an
appropriate weight. She is doing well in kindergarten and appears bonded to her foster parents.
While there was clearly a bond between respondent mother and Olivia, we cannot conclude on
the whole record that the trial court clearly erred by finding that termination was not clearly
contrary to the best interests of the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
