IN RE GRIMMETT/GUIFFRE/ANDERSON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KELLY JOANN GRIMMETT,
CHELSEA ANN MARIE GRIMMETT, SHANE
MICHAEL GUIFFRE, and EIAN ANDERSON,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 23, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254421
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-392702
DIANE LEE GRIMMETT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MICHAEL GUIFFREE, ALQUINN
MERRIWEATHER, and CHRISTOPHER
ANDERSON,
Respondents.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and White and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by delayed leave granted the order terminating her parental
rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that a statutory ground for termination was
established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-356-357; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). Even assuming that respondent’s home was not unsuitable by the time of the
termination trial, respondent-appellant failed to fully comply with the requirements of her courtordered treatment plan. Although respondent-appellant completed parenting classes and a Clinic
for Child Study, she failed to regularly attend the visits with her children, complete counseling,
and maintain employment and income throughout the proceedings. In addition, despite the
court’s evident concern throughout the proceedings about whether respondent-appellant was
abusing drugs, respondent-appellant only sporadically provided the ordered drug screens and
failed to attend a substance abuse assessment.
-1-
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.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at
354. We are not convinced that the trial court clearly erred in terminating respondent-appellant’s
parental rights.
Respondent-appellant also suggests on appeal that petitioner did not adequately assist her
towards reunification because there was a lack of continuity in the caseworkers assigned to her
case. Although testimony indicated that at least three different caseworkers were assigned to
respondent-appellant’s case throughout the proceedings, there is no indication in the record that
petitioner failed to make reasonable efforts towards reunification. To the contrary, respondentappellant was assigned the same supervisor throughout the proceedings and respondent-appellant
knew that she could contact the supervisor if she needed to. Furthermore, petitioner made
numerous referrals for services. Therefore, we find that the record does not support respondentappellant’s argument.
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.
