IN RE HUBBARD MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TORIO JAMAR EDWARD
HUBBARD and FRANCINE ELIZABETH
HUBBARD, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 14, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
Nos. 252688
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-385286
EDWARD LEWIS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PINKIE JEWELL HUBBARD,
Respondent.
In the Matter of TORIO JAMAR EDWARD
HUBBARD and FRANCINE ELIZABETH
HUBBARD, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252816
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-385286
PINKIE JEWELL HUBBARD,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
-1-
EDWARD LEWIS,
Respondent.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and White and Talbot, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g),
(j), and (k)(i). We affirm. These appeals are being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(A) and (E).
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 conditions leading to adjudication were
respondent Hubbard’s drug use, homelessness, and lack of supervision over the children.
Respondent Hubbard waited until six months after the children’s removal to begin drug
treatment. Although she maintained sobriety for a period of approximately eighteen months and
complied with all the elements of her treatment plan except housing, she relapsed shortly after
the children were returned to her in October 2002. Respondent disappeared with one of the
children, leaving the other behind with his maternal grandmother. Respondent Hubbard did not
rectify the conditions of adjudication over the long-term and remained unable to provide the
children with long-term proper care or custody. The children suffered emotional distress because
of their mother’s neglect and the dissolution of their family, and since conditions had not
changed they were likely to suffer harm if returned to her.
Respondent Lewis did not live with or support the children for the six months prior to
commencement of this proceeding in February 2000. He left the children in the care of their
substance-abusing mother, and did not financially support the children to the point that they were
faced with homelessness. During the three-year course of these proceedings, respondent Lewis
expressed interest in reunification with the children, but failed to vigorously pursue this goal.
Despite some early participation in services, for the most part respondent did not visit the
children, did not provide consistent drug/alcohol screens, did not financially support the children,
and did not maintain contact with the caseworker. In three and a half years, respondent Lewis
failed to rectify the conditions of substance abuse, domestic violence, and failure to visit and
support his children. Returning the children to his care would be likely to result in their
emotional and physical harm. The fact that respondent Lewis did not visit the children or
participate in any services for the last ten months or more of the proceedings also demonstrated
that he was not effectively pursuing their custody and had effectively abandoned them.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents’ parental rights was
clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The evidence indicated that the oldest child suffered emotionally as
-2-
a result of his parents’ neglect. The trial court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental
rights to the children.
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.
