IN RE GRANT MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DESHANNON GRANT, JAMAL
GRANT, JASMIRE GRANT, LASUNNA
GRANT, and RAYMOND GRANT, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 1, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 262835
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-114016-NA
AMANDA THOMAS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DESHANNON GRANT,
Respondent.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Schuette and Borrello, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We
affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that at least one of the statutory grounds
for termination of parental rights was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR
3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The evidence was clear and
convincing that respondent-appellant made little progress in conquering her cocaine addiction
during the two-year proceeding. Although she had completed an inpatient drug treatment
program, respondent-appellant failed to demonstrate compliance with subsequent outpatient
treatment and failed to provide drug screens as required. During the two-year proceeding,
respondent-appellant failed to obtain suitable housing for the children and consistently lacked the
means to provide for their basic needs. The evidence was clear and convincing that respondentappellant was not able to safely and effectively parent the children and that there was no
reasonable expectation that she would be able to do so within a reasonable time. The evidence
-1-
also showed that the children were likely to suffer harm in her care. MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i),
(g), and (j) supported termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights.
The evidence was not clear and convincing that respondent failed to protect her children
from their father’s physical abuse, and subsection 19b(3)(b)(ii) was not applicable to termination
of respondent-appellant’s parental rights. Evidence was presented suggesting that the children
were frequently whipped and otherwise physically abused by Mr. Grant, but the evidence was
general, scant, and not sufficient to show respondent-appellant’s complicity, presence during the
abuse, or failure to attempt to prevent the abuse.
Respondent-appellant also argues that she was denied her constitutional due process right
to receive notice of the termination hearing. However, the lower court record and testimony
provided at the termination hearing showed that respondent-appellant was personally served with
notice of the May 11, 2005, termination hearing on March 22, 2005, and with a copy of the
termination petition within the first two weeks of April 2005.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/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.
