IN RE DIGGS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DENISE MARIE DIGGS,
SYLVIA DARISE DIGGS, GLORIA DIANE
DIGGS, and KEVIN LAFAYETTE DIGGS, JR.,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 14, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252612
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 87-266061
KEVIN DIGGS, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SHIRLEY ANN DIGGS,
Respondent.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and White and Talbot, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory ground for termination was
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent-appellant failed to provide proper care and custody of the
children by failing to maintain the home in a minimally safe and sanitary condition. The
evidence indicated that the home was extremely cluttered, with old food and dirty dishes sitting
out, a ceiling that was caving in, and a large hole in the upstairs floor. None of the four children
had beds and they slept with respondent-appellant or their grandmother, and sometimes with
their mother and her boyfriend. Respondent-appellant further failed to provide proper care for
the children by failing to protect them from their mother’s cocaine abuse. All four of the
children tested positive for cocaine at birth.
Finally, respondent-appellant failed to provide
proper care and custody for the children by allowing them to have continued contact with their
mother despite several agreements not to allow such contact.
-1-
The evidence also supports the trial court’s conclusion that respondent-appellant would
not be able to provide proper care and custody for the children in a reasonable time considering
their ages. As the trial court noted, termination might not have been warranted at the initial
dispositional hearing if the only problem were the condition of the home, or if this were
respondent-appellant’s first contact with petitioner. However, the house remained unsafe and
unsuitable despite a previous complaint concerning housing, and there were numerous previous
instances of FIA involvement. Respondent-appellant demonstrated indifference to the welfare of
the children by continuing to maintain a relationship with their mother despite her cocaine
addiction. The trial court found respondent-appellant’s testimony that he would sever his
relationship with the children’s mother lacking in credibility in light of the fact that respondentappellant had repeatedly agreed to do so in the past, yet continued to have a relationship with her
and allowed her to stay at the home with the children. This court accords deference to the
special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re Miller, supra
at 337. The evidence of environmental neglect together with respondent-appellant’s continued
relationship with the children’s mother clearly supports the trial court’s conclusion that there was
no reasonable likelihood that respondent-appellant would be able to provide proper care and
custody for the minor children within a reasonable time. The trial court did not clearly err in so
finding.
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination of respondentappellant’s parental rights was not clearly contrary to the best interests of the children. MCL
712A.19b(5). Although respondent-appellant no doubt loves the children, his actions over a long
term have not been in their best interests. There was no evidence that termination would be
contrary to the best interests of the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
