IN RE ALEXANDER LEE NEAL MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALEXANDER LEE NEAL, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 28, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255477
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-028010-NA
ASHLEY LYNN LOGAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MONSONAE WASHINGTON,
Respondent.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murray and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not err reversibly in assuming jurisdiction over the child, in removing
the child from his paternal grandparents’ home, or in finding that reasonable efforts were made
by FIA to prevent removal. MCL 712A.2(b)(1), (2); MCR 3.963(A), (B); In re Hatcher, 443
Mich 426, 444; 505 NW2d 834 (1993). These issues were not preserved for appellate review,
because no objection was made below or appeal taken from the trial court orders. MCR
3.993(A)(1). Here, the child was found sleeping on a mattress with a loaded gun underneath.
Drug distribution paraphernalia were found in the home, which was frequented by many people
and may have been the scene of drug transactions. The paternal grandparents were not willing to
refuse access to their home to their children and children’s friends. We agree with the trial court
that the unsafe atmosphere remained after the child was removed.
Respondent-appellant also claims that the trial court erred in terminating her parental
rights because termination was not shown to be in the child’s best interests. We disagree. Once
a statutory ground for termination is proven by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court
-1-
must terminate parental rights unless it finds from the whole record that termination would be
clearly contrary to the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We find no clear error in the trial court’s decision on the
best interests question. While some evidence was presented supporting a temporary
guardianship with the maternal grandmother, the court’s emphasis on permanence and stability
for the young child was in accord with the legislative intent. See Trejo, supra at 363-365. The
maternal grandmother was not available to care for the minor child when respondent-appellant
was arrested during the pendency of the case. Respondent-appellant was later jailed on a oneyear sentence and placed on probation for five years after pleading guilty to stealing a retail
device contrary to MCL 750.157, and habitual offender fourth offense, in violation of MCL
769.12. Respondent-appellant’s past behavior was the best predictor of her future actions. We
cannot fault the trial court for being skeptical of her assertion that she had “learned her lesson”
and would lead a stable lifestyle and abstain from criminal activity for her child’s sake.
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.
