IN RE COLON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JUNA SOLE COLON and
ROBERTO COLON III, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 13, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 272047
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-688108-NA
KIMARA COLON,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Donofrio, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to
the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). We affirm.
This Court reviews decisions terminating parental rights for clear error. MCR 3.977(J);
In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The trial court did not clearly err in
finding that section (j) was established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent mother
admitted that she was an alcoholic and that she used cocaine when she drank. She admitted that
she was using at the time of trial and that she would not pass a drug test. She testified that, in the
six months preceding the trial, she entered both outpatient treatment and inpatient treatment and
did not complete either. Although there was no direct evidence that respondent mother’s
substance abuse problem endangered her children, there was enough circumstantial evidence for
the trial court to find that petitioner established that there was a reasonable likelihood, based on
respondent mother’s drug use, that the children would be harmed if returned to respondent
mother’s home.
The trial court also did not clearly err in its best interests determination. Termination of
parental rights is mandatory if the trial court finds that the petitioner established a statutory
ground for termination, unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the child’s best
interest. MCL 712A;19b(5); Trejo, supra at 344. After finding that a statutory basis for
termination was established, the trial court gave respondent mother an opportunity to complete
treatment so that it could find that termination was not in the children’s best interests.
Respondent mother did not do so and did not even appear for the best interests hearing.
-1-
Although there was evidence of a bond between respondent mother and the children, that
evidence was overwhelmed by respondent mother’s inability to complete drug treatment when
she knew her parental rights hung in the balance.
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.
