IN RE HALSEY/VANAKEN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ASHLEY MARLENE HALSEY
and TORY ANN VANAKEN, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 19, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 258914
Branch Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-002633-NA
CLARA HALSEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TROY VANAKEN and HARRY PELLGREENE,
Respondents.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Sawyer and Wilder, 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), (c)(ii), and (g). We affirm.
Although respondent-appellant’s statement of the questions involved in her brief on
appeal included an issue regarding the sufficiency of the evidence of the statutory grounds for
termination, respondent-appellant did not properly present this issue on appeal because she did
not argue the merits of this issue in her brief on appeal. Richmond Twp v Erbes, 195 Mich App
210; 489 NW2d 504 (1992). Respondent-appellant may not merely announce her position and
leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for her claims. Wilson v Taylor, 457
Mich 232, 243; 577 NW2d 100 (1998). Nevertheless, after a review of the record, we conclude
that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). The children were adjudicated court wards because respondent-appellant
left them with an unsuitable caregiver. They were removed from respondent-appellant’s home
and placed in foster care because of her repeated violations of court orders. At the time of the
termination trial, there was evidence that respondent-appellant still was not able to protect her
-1-
children and make appropriate decisions for them and would require long-term therapy to be able
to be an effective parent.
Furthermore, 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
Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although there was evidence that
respondent-appellant was making some progress at the time of the termination hearing, the
children could wait no longer for a stable home. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
