IN RE MORIA LEATHERMAN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MORIA LEATHERMAN, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 10, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 258644
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-052835-NA
ANNA L. CHILDRESS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ARCHIE LEATHERMAN,
Respondent.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that at least one of the statutory grounds
was established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612
NW2d 407 (2000); In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 25; 501 NW2d 182 (1993), citing In re
McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991).
First, we find no clear error in the trial court’s finding that the evidence supported
termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). The primary condition that led to the adjudication in
this case was respondent-appellant’s serious substance abuse problem. The evidence clearly
established that, more than 182 days after the court entered the initial dispositional order,
respondent-appellant had not yet rectified her substance abuse problem having tested positive for
cocaine and marijuana during the proceedings, going into “chronic addiction” during the
proceedings and beginning inpatient treatment shortly before the termination trial. Moreover,
respondent-appellant has an extensive history of serious drug abuse and, despite past treatment,
has been unable to maintain her sobriety to the detriment of her children as evidenced by their
removals due to her drug abuse. Given respondent-appellant’s past relapses, despite her
-1-
involvement and apparent progress with treatment, and her extensive history of serious drug use,
it remained unlikely that she would be able to successfully address her substance abuse problem,
the condition that led to the adjudication, even with continued services.
For the same reasons we also find that termination was justified under MCL
712A.19b(3)(g). Given respondent-appellant’s inability to successfully address her substance
abuse problem in the past to the detriment of her children we find no reasonable expectation that
she would be able to successfully address her substance abuse problem within a reasonable time
if ever, to enable her to provide proper care and custody for the child.
Because respondent-appellant was not given adequate notice that she would have to
defend on the statutory ground found in MCL 712A.19b(3)(j), the trial court erred in relying on
this ground. In re Perry, 193 Mich App 648, 651; 484 NW2d 768 (1992); In re Slis, 144 Mich
App 678, 684; 375 NW2d 788 (1985). However, the trial court’s error was harmless because the
court properly found other statutory grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and
(g) as specified in the petition. In re Powers, 244 Mich App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472 (2000); In
re Perry, supra at 651.
Finally, although there was evidence that respondent-appellant had a bond with the child,
she desired to be a good parent and had recently made progress towards addressing her serious
substance abuse problem by beginning a treatment program, given the foregoing evidence we
find no clear error in the trial court’s determination that termination was in the child’s best
interests.1 Respondent-appellant’s recurring, serious drug problem would likely result in a
potentially harmful environment and create instability and a lack of permanency for the young
child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
1
The trial court went beyond the best interest inquiry under MCL 712A.19b(5). The statute does
not require that the court affirmatively find that termination is in the child’s best interests. In re
Trejo, supra at 364 n 19.
-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.
