IN RE GIBBONS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of QUARTEZ SHERMAR
GIBBONS, MARTEZ DEREK GIBBONS,
DECARLOS MARKESE GIBBONS, and JEMIA
FRANSHAY DELORES GIBBONS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 14, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254285
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-396944
JERETTA MARIE IVY,
Respondent-Appellant.
and
MARCUS GIBBONS-ROBINSON, a/k/a
MARCUS DERRICK ROBINSON,
Respondent.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and White and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by delayed leave granted from the trial court order
terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g),
(j), and (k)(i). 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 Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The conditions leading to the adjudication continued to exist three
years after the inception of the case. Respondent-appellant did not have housing, did not have
stable employment, and did not deal effectively with her substance abuse problems.
Additionally, she failed to visit her children from August 27, 2003, to the trial date of January
30, 2004, although the children were staying with relatives and were readily available to her.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19(b)(5), Trejo, supra at 356357. While respondent-appellant testified that she loved her children and wanted them back, the
-1-
record shows that she failed to make any meaningful progress towards that goal during the
pendency of the case, and that the children were more closely bonded to others. Accordingly,
the trial court acted properly in declining to find that termination was clearly not in the children’s
best interests.
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.
