IN RE OLIVIA IRENE FITZSIMMONS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of OLIVIA IRENE FITZSIMMONS,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 23, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254823
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2002-000118-NA
SIDNEY LEE CALDWELL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LAURA FITZSIMMONS,
Respondent.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murray and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Sidney Lee Caldwell appeals as of right the termination of his parental rights.
We affirm.
Under MCL 712A.19b(3), the petitioner seeking the termination of parental rights bears
the burden of proving at least one ground for termination. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341; 612 NW2d
407 (2000). Once the petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that persuades the
court that a ground for termination is established, termination of parental rights is mandatory
unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. Id., at 355-356.
Decisions terminating parental rights are reviewed for clear error. Id., at 356.
The petition alleged that respondent failed to provide proper care and custody and there
was a reasonable likelihood of harm if the child were to be returned to his home. MCL
712A.19b(3) provides for termination when
(g)
The parent, without regard to intent, fails to provide proper care or
custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be
-1-
able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the
child’s age.
* * *
(j)
There is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity
of the child’s parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is returned to the
home of the parent.
There was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of respondent’s
parental rights. Respondent never provided care for the child. The child had serious emotional
problems, and respondent did not show any understanding of how to deal with her. He failed to
cooperate with the caseworker, and showed no prospect of improvement. He had no contact
with the child for most of her life, including a nine-month period in which this case was pending.
Given the child’s condition, and the total lack of a bond with respondent, there was clear and
convincing evidence that she would likely suffer harm if placed in respondent’s custody. There
was no evidence that termination would not be in her best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
