STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of GABRIELLE NATASHA
FERGUSON, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 26, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 268683
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-432458-NA
CALVIN COOPER,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Jansen and Cooper, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), (j), and (k)(ii). We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the 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). Respondent did not attend any supervised agency visits. Indeed,
because his whereabouts were frequently unknown and respondent did not keep in contact with
the worker, it was impossible to schedule supervised visits. Respondent testified that he saw his
daughter every other day when he went to his mother’s house to get something to eat. However,
foster care specialist Robin Smith testified that she was aware of only one unauthorized visit
between respondent and the child at respondent’s mother’s home since 2004. Smith further
testified that respondent’s mother and sister, the child’s caregivers, did not want respondent in
their home any longer because of his drug use. In addition to not visiting with the child,
respondent failed to provide any other physical, financial or emotional support the entire time
Gabrielle was in care. Further, the trial court found that because of lack of contact with the
agency, absence from court hearings, and failure to participate in services, respondent clearly
was not seeking custody of his daughter. We agree that these facts were sufficient for the trial
court to conclude that respondent had deserted and abandoned his young daughter. In re Hall,
188 Mich App 217; 222-223; 469 NW2d (1991).
-1-
Respondent also failed to comply in any meaningful way with the treatment plan, which
is evidence of failure to provide proper care and custody. In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 214; 661
NW2d 216 (2003). He did not attend visitation or court hearings and did not keep in contact
with the case worker. He did not comply with the court-ordered random drug screens, and he
admitted to using drugs on at least one occasion. Respondent attended only 20 counseling
sessions during the 18 months the child was in care. He did not comply with the conditions of
his probation; indeed, he committed additional offenses and a warrant was outstanding at the
time of the termination hearing. Respondent did not have suitable housing or a legal source of
income. Respondent admitted at the time of termination that he was not prepared at that time to
care for his child. Further, the fact that respondent had not made any progress in the 18 months
that Gabrielle was in care is indicative of what the future would hold.
Finally, the evidence failed to establish that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was not in the child’s best interests. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the child
needed permanency in her life to facilitate her continued growth and development.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
-2-
