IN RE MCNEIL MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DOROTHY NICOLE MCNEIL
and NICOLE MCNEIL, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 14, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 253780
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 90-282761
ETHEL MAE MCNEIL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOHN CHEATAM,
Respondent.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and White and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from orders terminating her parental rights to
the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm. This case is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent-appellant has a history with child protective services and of abusing cocaine,
and she was homeless when her three older children came into the court’s custody. One of the
children, who was born during the pendency of these proceedings, tested positive for cocaine at
her birth. Respondent-appellant did not substantially comply with the parent agency agreement.
In addition to her relapses into substance abuse and her failure to provide consistent drug
screens, she continued to be homeless and did not consistently visit the minor children.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612
NW2d 407 (2000); In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1993). Respondentappellant was not able to provide proper care and custody of the minor children as evidenced by
her relapses into substance abuse despite being in and out of substance abuse programs, sporadic
visitation, absence of drug screens, and homelessness. Based on respondent-appellant’s lack of
-1-
progress over a significant period of time, there was no reasonable expectation that she would be
able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time. Respondent-appellant
contends that she should have been given more time but the evidence was clear that she had been
given a significant amount of time and no progress had been made. Her conduct also indicated
that it was reasonably likely that the minor children would be harmed if returned to her care.
Furthermore, the trial court did not clearly err in not finding that termination of
respondent-appellant’s parental rights was not in the best interests of the minor children pursuant
to MCL 712A.19b(5) While the court made such a finding with regard to two of respondentappellant’s other children based on the unlikelihood that they would adopted and provided with a
stable place to live, the court could not make such a finding for the children here. Both of these
children need and deserve stability, which respondent-appellant could not provide.
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.
