IN RE MICHEL ELKINS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MICHAEL ELKINS, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 27, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 263462
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-050198-NA
TINA LADD,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MICHAEL R. ELKINS,
Respondent.
Before: Owens, P.J., Saad and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from an order terminating her parental rights to
the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err when it found that the statutory grounds to terminate
respondent-appellant’s rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J);
In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). It was undisputed that respondentappellant’s parental-rights to four other children were terminated in 1996 as the result of physical
and medical neglect, physical and severe emotional abuse, and sexual abuse. After that,
respondent-appellant gave birth to three more children, Randi in 1998, Bruce in 2003, and
Michael, the minor child at issue, in 2004. Respondent-appellant abandoned Randi in 2003, did
not participate in services offered to her, moved to Florida to avoid protective services
intervention with regard to another pregnancy, and gave birth to Bruce. Bruce was made a
temporary ward of the court in Florida, and respondent-appellant moved to Michigan and gave
birth to Michael. Respondent-appellant did not visit Bruce in Florida after he was taken from her
care. During the period of time that she was pregnant with Michael, respondent-appellant was
anxious, smoked cigarettes, and did not take medication for her bipolar disorder. Respondentappellant did not cooperate with agencies that were addressing protection of the minor child.
She did not respond to visits, cancelled or did not show for appointments, and was not
-1-
forthcoming with information. Testimony of a social worker regarding respondent-appellant’s
progress was found not to be credible by the trial court because the social worker admitted that
her testimony was based on respondent-appellant’s self reporting.
Respondent-appellant argues that the case should be remanded and that she should be
given an opportunity to receive services toward reunification. The court is not required to
provide respondent-appellant with this opportunity. The law is clear that if petitioner requests
termination in the initial petition, the need to develop and consider a case plan to reunite the
family is eliminated and the trial court can terminate parental rights at the initial disposition
hearing. MCL 712A.19b(4) and MCR 3.977(E).
Furthermore, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that it was not contrary to the
best interests of the minor child to terminate respondent-appellant’s parental rights. MCL
712A.19(b)(5). The minor child needed permanency, and it was clear from all of the evidence
presented at the trial that respondent-appellant would be unable to provide the minor child with
permanency.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
