IN RE NEWMAN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRANDY NEWMAN and
DONALD NEWMAN, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 10, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 256957
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-115309-NA
RANDALL NEWMAN II,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
AMANDA LYNN NEWMAN,
Respondent.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Markey and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant (respondent) appeals as of right from the order of the trial court
terminating his parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i),
(g), and (j). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Respondent argues that termination was premature because the agency failed to provide
him with services after his release from prison to assist him in reunification with his children.
Respondent contends that he was denied the opportunity to demonstrate that he would be able to
rectify the conditions that led to adjudication and provide proper care and custody within a
reasonable time considering the children’s ages. We disagree that termination was premature.
There was sufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that statutory grounds for
termination existed.
For several months before his incarceration, respondent was provided multiple services in
an effort toward reunification. Respondent failed to participate and/or complete any of the
services provided in the Parent/Agency Agreement. Then, when respondent was incarcerated,
petitioner made reasonable efforts, albeit unsuccessful, to provide him with some services.
-1-
Additionally, the Department of Corrections provided some assistance to respondent. However,
he failed to cooperate. While incarcerated, respondent refused to take the recommended
medication prescribed for his mental health issues, he squandered employment opportunities
while in the halfway house, and he became involved in a violent altercation with his probation
officer that necessitated a transfer back to a facility of greater security. At the time of
termination, there was no basis to conclude that respondent would be in a position to properly
parent his children or rectify the conditions that caused the children to come into care within a
reasonable time considering the children’s ages. Based upon this record, it cannot be said that
the trial court clearly erred in finding that statutory grounds for termination had been established
by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d
520 (1999).
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/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.
