IN RE CEPEDA MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ANTONIO JOSEPH CEPEDA,
BRIANNA KATERI CEPEDA, and EZEKEIAL
ALEXANDER CEPEDA, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 22, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 261337
Emmet Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-005028-NA
AMY CEPEDA,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
EDDIE CHANDLER,
Respondent.
In the Matter of ANTONIO JOSEPH CEPEDA,
BRIANNA KATERI CEPEDA, and EZEKEIAL
ALEXANDER CEPEDA, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 261338
Emmet Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-005028-NA
EDDIE CHANDLER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
AMY CEPEDA,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Neff and Markey, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and
(g). We affirm.
Respondent Chandler claims that the trial court erred reversibly in using language from
MCL 712A.2(b)(2), the statutory subsection concerning family court jurisdiction, in finding that
"on account of drunkenness and criminality the parents have neglected their children." We find
no error. The trial court also concluded that two statutory grounds for termination of parental
rights were satisfied, and the court's opinion showed no confusion over the proper legal
standards. Further, drunkenness and criminality are two behavior patterns that often lead to or
occur with child neglect.
We also find no clear error in the trial court's determination that clear and convincing
evidence satisfied the statutory grounds in subsections (c)(i) and (g). MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo,
462 Mich 341, 357-362; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 636-639; 593 NW2d
520 (1999). Respondents both relapsed on cocaine and alcohol for a three-week period in
September 2004. That this followed an eight-month period of sobriety and compliance with the
case service plan does not require a different result.
The evidence showed that respondents had a long-standing problem with drugs and
alcohol; the children were removed in November 2003, as in 1999, because the parents went on a
drug binge. In 2003, they left one or more children alone for three prolonged periods. Antonio,
then thirteen, was left alone for over a week in November 2003. He learned to care for himself
and was described as "self-parenting" in his psychological evaluation. Respondents also failed to
insist upon school attendance, did not participate substantially in court-ordered treatment,
counseling, and visitation with Ezekeial when he was in residential treatment, failed to have
Ezekeial take his medications, and did not properly supervise Brianna in Grand Rapids in
November 2003.
Respondents' drug and alcohol abuse and neglect were recurring, cyclical problems that
adversely affected the minor children. After the latest relapse, the consensus of mental health
and substance abuse professionals was that at least six months, perhaps two years, would be
required before the children could safely be returned to respondents' home. These estimates
assumed no further relapses, a questionable assumption in view of respondents' long history with
drugs, alcohol, instability, and criminal behavior. The latest drug binge landed both respondents
in jail and they planned to enter inpatient drug treatment after that. We agree with the trial court
that the evidence convincingly showed that respondents failed to provide proper care and
custody for the minor children and would be unlikely to be able to do so within a reasonable time
given the children's ages, and also that the conditions leading to adjudication continued and were
not likely to be rectified within a reasonable time.
We further find no clear error in the trial court's conclusion that termination of
respondents' parental rights to the minor children was not clearly contrary to the children's best
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 356-357. The children need a loving, safe, stable,
-2-
structured home, which respondents are unable to provide. Respondents love the children and
the children love them, but respondents have been unable to conquer their drug and alcohol
problems and to provide a fit home for the children. Ezekeial and Antonio are already in high
school and Brianna is in middle school. Uncertainty over their placement and respondents'
progress is adversely affecting their well-being. It is not in their best interests to make them wait
while their parents undertake an uncertain course of counseling, rehabilitation, and recovery. We
find no clear error.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-3-
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.
