IN RE BIGGIN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MICHAEL BIGGIN, JR.,
DESTINY HALE, and MADISON BIGGIN,
Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 25, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 262495
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-037721-NA
KELLIE HALE,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of MICHAEL BIGGIN, JR. and
MADISON BIGGIN, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 262712
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-037721-NA
MICHAEL BIGGIN, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Hoekstra and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court’s orders
terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We
affirm. These appeals are being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
-1-
Respondent Kellie Hale is the mother of five children, three of whom are involved in this
case. Respondent Michael Biggin, Sr. is the father of two of these three children. The record
shows that both respondents were very young when their children were born. Because of
respondents’ age and immaturity, neither was able to provide proper care, custody, and support
for their children.
Each of respondent-mother’s children was eventually adjudicated.
Respondent-mother, with whom the children were initially placed, depended on the services of
the court and assistance of adults for the care and custody of her children. Both respondents
were ordered to comply with service plans. Although respondent-mother completed the service
plan, she did not substantially benefit from the provision of the services and continued to
maintain a relationship with respondent-father, even though they were both subject to no-contact
orders. The record further shows that respondent-father had anger management and substance
abuse issues, and did not fully comply with the service plan.
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). With regard to respondent-mother, the principal conditions that led
to adjudication were her inability to provide care, custody, and support and her abusive
relationship with respondent-father. Respondent-father also failed to provide support for his
children and had problems managing his anger. The evidence established that respondentmother did not benefit from the treatment programs, was unable to provide custody, care, and
support for her children, and was unable or refused to comply with orders directing her to have
no contact with respondent-father. The evidence further established that respondent-father did
not comply with the service plan regarding substance abuse and anger management, did not visit
his children under the required supervised conditions, and did not provide support for them.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of either respondents’ parental rights
was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although there was some evidence that the children and
respondent-mother bonded, other evidence demonstrated that whatever bond existed between
them was not beneficial to the children’s well-being. Moreover, there is no evidence that
respondent-father established a beneficial bond with his children. Thus, the trial court did not err
in terminating respondents’ parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
