IN RE TAE-KON NICOLEI BROOKS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TAE-KON NICOLEI BROOKS,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 16, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254533
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-393246-NA
LAWRENCE BROOKS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ROXANNE LYNN MCGOVERN, a/k/a
ROXANNE LYNN BROOKS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of TAE-KON NICOLEI BROOKS,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254828
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-393246-NA
ROXANNE LYNN MCGOVERN, a/k/a
ROXANNE LYNN BROOKS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LAWRENCE BROOKS,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Smolenski and Owens, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (i),
and (j). This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). We
affirm.
Both respondents had their parental rights to other children terminated in separate prior
cases. In the prior termination involving respondent-mother, the child was born testing positive
for marijuana and was left unsupervised in an unheated trailer as an infant. Respondent-mother’s
parental rights were terminated after she failed to appear to plan for the child. In respondentfather’s prior case, his parental rights were terminated after he refused to end his relationship
with the child’s drug abusing mother. In addition, respondent-father tested positive for drugs
himself, and the family home was assessed as being unsuitable for the child.
In the present case, both respondent-mother and the minor child tested positive for
cocaine at the child’s birth. Respondent-mother admitted using drugs during the pregnancy.
Despite the prior terminations, the court allowed both parents the opportunity to plan for the
child. For over a year, respondents received assistance from the agency contracted by the FIA.
This assistance included referrals for respondent-mother to receive substance abuse treatment
and individual counseling. Similarly, respondent-father was encouraged to receive drug
treatment, as well as therapy for codependent partners of substance abusers. The termination
petition was dismissed at one point after the trial court determined the case had not been properly
serviced. However, another petition was re-filed shortly afterward because respondent-mother
still used drugs, refused to enter treatment, did not provide drug screens, and did not visit with
the child for three months. Respondent-father still denied his own drug use and refused to end
his relationship with respondent-mother. Respondent-father’s drug screens tested positive for
cocaine after a request was made for the laboratory to closely monitor respondent-father’s
collection process. Respondent-father was employed at the time of the termination trial, but the
family home remained in unsuitable condition.
The trial court did not clearly err in terminating respondent father’s parental rights. MCR
3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). On the basis of the previously
summarized evidence, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that respondent-father did not
rectify the adjudicating conditions, did not provide proper care and custody for the child, had not
been rehabilitated since his prior termination, and that there was a likelihood of harm to the child
if returned to respondent-father’s care. Despite respondent-father’s arguments to the contrary,
the assistance provided by the FIA agency was reasonable (with the exception of a two or threemonth interval in 2003), and it was respondent-father’s lack of efforts that led to the termination
of his parental rights.
Both respondents argue that the trial court erred in determining that termination of their
parental rights was not contrary to the child’s best interests. We review for clear error the trial
court’s decision with regard to the child’s best interests. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357;
-2-
612 NW2d 407 (2000). We find that the evidence strongly supported the trial court’s decision
that termination was not clearly against the child’s best interests. With the exception of a twomonth period, the assistance provided by the agency was reasonable. The child was young and
in need of a stable home, which was not provided by respondents who continued to be controlled
by their drug addictions.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
