IN RE EDWARDS/TOFFELMIRE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRITNEY DESSARAY
EDWARDS, BRIANNA NICOLE TOFFELMIRE,
and LYNDSIE ALEXANDRIA TOFFELMIRE,
Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 15, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 263023
Cass Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-000028-NA
MICHELLE MARCELLA TOFFELMIRE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Schuette and Borrello, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to
the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
Initially, we note that petitioner’s jurisdictional challenge is without merit. The
timeliness of this appeal is governed by MCR 7.204(A)(1)(d). Respondent’s claim of appeal was
timely because respondent timely requested the appointment of an attorney and filed a claim of
appeal within fourteen days after the appointment.
We further note that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds
for termination set forth in MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j) were established by clear and
convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
There was clear and convincing evidence that respondent exposed her children to her physically
abusive relationships in the past and that her children were mentally and emotionally harmed by
such exposure. In addition, there was evidence that respondent made no progress in resolving
her domestic violence issues in the more than two years since her children were placed in foster
care. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the children.
Finally, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although there was evidence that respondent loved the children
-1-
and was bonded to them, there was also expert testimony that the children had been emotionally
harmed by their exposure to violence and needed permanence immediately. Thus, the trial court
did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the children.
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.
