IN RE STEVENSON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TAMARA STEVENSON and
WILLIAM STEVENSON, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 21, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 260191
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-001924-NA
JEFFREY STEVENSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
REBECCA VANZANDT,
Respondent.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Schuette and Borrello, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant 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)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds were established by
clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161
(1989). The condition that led to adjudication was respondent-appellant’s inability to provide
proper care for the children. The evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrated that, at the
time of termination, respondent-appellant had yet to address his borderline personality disorder.
This disorder prevented respondent-appellant from being able to provide a safe and nurturing
environment for his children. Respondent-appellant lacked the capacity and motivation to
recognize his children’s needs and respond to those needs. He was detached from his children
and there existed no bond. Further, at the time of termination, respondent-appellant’s living
arrangements were unstable and his income was not steady.
Additionally, there was no evidence that respondent-appellant would be able to provide
proper care and custody of his children within a reasonable time period. All of the mental health
-1-
experts consistently testified that respondent-appellant’s disorder was ingrained, part of his
makeup, and highly resistant to change. The experts testified that it would take years of
specialized treatment before respondent-appellant could work through the disorder. Based upon
the foregoing, the trial court did not err when it concluded that there existed clear and convincing
evidence to support termination pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).
Further, 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). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights to his children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Bill Schuette
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
-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.
