IN RE KOWALCZYK/MORGAN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of GARY MICHAEL
KOWALCZYK and KYLE EDWARD GLEN
MORGAN, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
February 6, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
MELANIE LOUISE MORGAN, a/k/a MELANIE
LOUISE MORGAN CHAMPINE,
No. 271396
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-425278-NA
Respondent-Appellant,
and
STANLEY KOWALCZYK II,
Respondent.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Donofrio, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). 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 statutory grounds for termination of
respondent-appellant’s parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR
3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The conditions causing the
children’s wardship in this proceeding were respondent-appellant’s lack of parenting skills,
environmental neglect, lack of financial resources to provide for the children, and anger
management issues leading to domestic violence or, in essence, her inability to provide the
children with proper care or custody. More than 182 days elapsed between the July 21, 2004
adjudication and June 5, 2006 termination hearing.
The evidence showed that respondent-appellant exhibited some strengths during the
course of this proceeding, including average intelligence, the cognitive ability to be a suitable
-1-
parent, lack of substance abuse issues, physical health, consistent contact with the caseworker,
and progress in counseling. However, the evidence also showed that for nearly ten years, since
1996, respondent-appellant had not been able to maintain a home free of issues requiring
protective services intervention and was unable to maintain stable relationships with the fathers
of her children. In addition, even though she had received Families First services twice in the
past, fairly consistently attended counseling during this two-year proceeding, completed two
sessions of parenting classes, and had no barriers to employment, the evidence at the time of
termination showed that she had not maintained employment for any significant length of time,
provided a stable home for her children in which they would receive proper care and effective
parenting, or demonstrated good decision making in her personal relationships, as evidenced by
her marriage to Champine. Although respondent-appellant argues that there were no allegations
of abuse against Champine in his child protective proceeding, he was a detriment to respondentappellant and her children because his lack of care and concern for his children was proven, and
he was as unemployed and without housing as was respondent-appellant.
Given the fact that respondent-appellant had not demonstrated an ability to provide the
children with proper care despite numerous interventions over the years and two years of
services in this case, there was no reasonable likelihood that she would be able to properly care
for them within a reasonable time. If returned to her, the children would likely suffer continued
neglect.
The trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights under
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). The court did not improperly base termination on her
marriage to Champine, but on clear and convincing evidence that respondent-appellant did not
rectify her inability to provide proper care for the children.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly contrary to the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The evidence of a strong bond between Kyle and
respondent-appellant and his preference to reside with her, and perhaps a lesser bond between
Gary and respondent mother, was outweighed by the fact that they would suffer continued
neglect in her care.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-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.
