IN RE GATES MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of THATIUS GATES and REBECCA
GATES, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 26, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255742
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-006672-NA
DAVID GATES,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Jansen and Bandstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds were
established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d
407 (2000); In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1993). The court terminated
the parental rights of the children’s mother at the initial disposition, and respondent was ordered
to comply with a parent agency agreement that focused on addressing his substance abuse.
Respondent was provided a variety of services, including a psychological exam, substance abuse
assessments, referrals for individual counseling, group sessions, residential and outpatient
treatment, and drug screens. Over approximately a ten-month period, respondent did not comply
with the treatment programs to any significant degree and continued to have drug screens that
were positive for cocaine and marijuana. In addition, respondent continued to have a
relationship and live with the children’s mother although her parental rights had been terminated.
At the termination trial, respondent stated that he could not begin drug treatment until he
underwent and recovered from a hip replacement, which would require another four or five
months. While respondent argues that he was not given enough time, that he was in substantial
compliance with the parent agency agreement; and that reasonable efforts were not made to
assist him in complying with the agreement, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the services
offered to respondent were significant, that respondent was not in substantial compliance, that
respondent’s reasons for not following through were excuses because respondent did not tell the
caseworkers that his health prevented him from participating in services, and that he had
-1-
adequate time to show some progress. The minor children, ages one and two at the time of
termination, could not wait any longer for respondent to begin addressing his substance abuse.
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err in determining that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was not contrary to the best interests of the minor children. There is nothing in
the testimony or exhibits admitted at the hearings that would support an argument that
termination of respondent’s parental rights was not in the best interests of these young minor
children.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
-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.
