IN RE BROWN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of RASSIOCILLIO DEVONNE
BROWN, ORLANDO DARIUS BROWN, and
ERROL D’JUAN BROWN, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 14, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 253106
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-394702
PRISCILLA MATTHEWS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
HENRY ORLANDO BROWN,
Respondent.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Saad and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds for termination
of parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent-appellant was addicted to heroin
and neglected to provide the children’s basic necessities, such as proper housing, food, and
education. During the nearly three-year course of this proceeding, respondent-appellant entered
three drug treatment programs, complied with some counseling requirements, and attended visits
with the children regularly, but did not demonstrate that she could remain drug-free.
Respondent-appellant submitted very few drug screens; some were positive for methadone while
her participation in a methadone program was suspect, and some were positive for opiates. She
did not demonstrate that she could become drug-free. She did not obtain suitable housing or
-1-
employment and, although the agency’s assistance in those areas was scant, efforts to maintain
housing and employment were premature if respondent did not overcome her drug addiction.
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, 462 Mich
341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although the children were ages fourteen, eleven, and
nine at the time of termination and were strongly bonded to respondent-appellant, they were also
old enough to realize that respondent-appellant was addicted to drugs and to remember the
neglect they suffered. The children were ambivalent in their feelings about returning to
respondent-appellant, and they were still not able to return to her after nearly three years of foster
care because she had not become drug free or obtained suitable housing. All of the children
needed counseling, and respondent-appellant was unable to maintain her own treatment, which
indicated that she would not be able to maintain their counseling. The trial court did not err in
determining that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was in the children’s best
interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
