IN RE CODY SERVICE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CODY SERVICE, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 16, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 256037
Barry Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-006726-NA
JASON SERVICE and CARRIE SERVICE,
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Wilder and Schuette, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondents appeal as of right the trial court order terminating their parental rights to
their minor child, Cody Service. Respondent Carrie Service's rights were terminated under MCL
712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (j), (k)(iii), and (l). Respondent Jason Service's rights were terminated
under MCL 712A.19b(3)(l). We affirm.
I. FACTS
Cody was removed at the hospital on January 12, 2004, two days after his birth.
Previously, on June 27, 2002, respondents' parental rights to Cody's sibling, Taylor Service
(d/o/b 5/4/01), were terminated because of physical abuse by respondent Carrie Service and
failure to protect by respondent Jason Service. Taylor sustained four to five rib factures, a
broken clavicle, fractures to the metaphyses (ends) of the left femur and tibia, and a collection of
blood in her chest or abdomen. She also had numerous unexplained bruises and was severely
underweight. This Court affirmed the termination of respondents' parental rights to Taylor. In
the Matter of TMS., Minor, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued
March 25, 2003 (Docket Nos. 242616, 242869). This Court affirmed the termination of
respondent mother's parental rights to Taylor under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and (j), and the
termination of respondent father's parental rights to Taylor under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) and
(j).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
-1-
Respondents do not challenge the trial court's findings concerning the statutory grounds
for termination of their parental rights to Cody, and we find no clear error concerning these
findings. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Powers, 208 Mich App
582, 591-593; 528 NW2d 799 (1995); MCR 3.977(J).
Respondents' argument is with the trial court's findings regarding the best interests of the
child. Once a statutory ground for termination has been established by clear and convincing
evidence, the court must terminate parental rights unless termination clearly is not in the child's
best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra, 462 Mich 353. The trial court's decision on the
best interests question is reviewed for clear error. In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d
216 (2003); Trejo, supra, 462 Mich 356-357.
III. ANALYSIS
We find no clear error in the trial court's best interests decision in the instant case.
Factors mentioned by the trial court included (1) respondent Carrie Service's anxiety in the
hospital while caring for Cody, which was reminiscent of her anxiety with Taylor, (2) respondent
Carrie Service's flat affect with Cody, (3) testimony of Carrie Service's therapist, Faye Featherly,
that Ms. Service was very frustrated and ill-equipped to care for a child, (4) respondent Carrie
Service's failure to progress past the first step of criteria for admitting responsibility and devising
a relapse safety plan, (5) respondent Carrie Service's lack of insight into the requirements of a
safe environment for a very young child, (6) respondent Carrie Service's poor relationship with
her family, (7) the conflicting statements made by respondent Carrie Service regarding the cause
of Taylor's injuries and her responsibility therefore, (8) both respondents' problems with anger,
(9) respondents' marriage, which occurred since the termination of their parental rights to Taylor,
(10) both respondents' marginal bonding with Taylor, and (11) respondents' having the same
support system now as they did when caring for Taylor. We agree with the trial court that these
factors support a finding that termination of respondents' parental rights to Cody is not clearly
contrary to Cody's best interests. Cody has special needs and is only slightly older than Taylor
was when respondent mother abused her. The abuse of Taylor was very severe, occurred over a
period of time, and was not noticed or prevented by respondent father. While respondents
attended anger management and parenting classes and counseling, respondent mother's failure to
progress sufficiently in counseling and to fully admit responsibility for Taylor's injuries, coupled
with respondent father's need to work and to be away from the home for long periods of time,
raise the distinct possibility that Cody will also suffer abuse if returned to respondents' home.
Cody needs a permanent, safe, stable home that respondents are unable to provide. Thus, the
trial court did not err in terminating respondents' parental rights to Cody.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.
