IN RE ANGELA GAIL COLE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ELIZABETH DIANA DAVIS, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 21, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
No. 260136
Isabella Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-001241-NA
v
JESSICA COLE,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of MIRANDA LYNN DESJARDINS,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
No. 260137
Isabella Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-003200-NA
v
JESSICA COLE,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of ANGELA GAIL COLE, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
No. 260144
Isabella Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-004025-NA
v
JESSICA COLE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Cavanagh and Neff, JJ.
-1-
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court’s orders terminating her parental rights
to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory ground for termination was
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). Unlike in In re Boursaw, 239 Mich App 161; 607 NW2d 408 (1999), the
trial court’s determination that § 19b(3)(g) was established was not predicated principally on the
testimony of a sole service provider. Rather, apart from Thomas Olson’s testimony regarding his
psychological evaluation of respondent, the trial court’s decision was also based on the testimony
of protective services workers, the caseworker, a substance abuse counselor, and respondent
herself. Further, unlike In re Boursaw, there was ample evidence in this case for the trial court to
find that respondent failed to make significant progress toward achieving the goals of her
treatment plan. The trial court’s decision reflects that the court relied on evidence regarding
respondent’s past experience to find the statutory ground proven.
The trial court reasonably looked to respondent’s past experience to find that there was
no reasonable expectation that respondent would provide proper care and custody for her
children within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages. Respondent’s lack of
compliance with the requirements of her treatment plan, including missed drug screens, her
minimal benefit from services, and her unstable home situation showed that she would have
difficulty meeting her own needs, much less the needs of her three young children. Giving
deference to the trial court’s superior opportunity to evaluate the credibility of witnesses who
appeared before it, we find no clear error in the trial court’s determination that § 19b(3)(g) was
proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re Miller, supra at 337.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Janet T. Neff
-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.
