IN RE THORNTON/WALLACE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KAYLEE ANN THORNTON,
ELIZABETH SARA THORNTON, and DAKOTA
EDWARD WALLACE, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
February 20, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 270611
Midland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-002667-NA
KAMIE KAY THORNTON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MICHAEL THORNTON,
Respondent.
Before: Meter, P.J., and O’Connell and Davis, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Kamie Thornton appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating
her parental rights to her minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). We affirm.
Respondent contends that the trial court erred in finding that clear and convincing
evidence supported termination of her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). We disagree.
Respondent’s live-in boyfriend was a known sex offender. It was undisputed that petitioner
informed respondent of this fact and advised her that the children would be removed from her
care if she permitted the sex offender to continue to live in her home. Several months later, the
sex offender was still or again living in the home, and respondent actively attempted to conceal
this fact from petitioner. The sex offender ultimately sexually assaulted one of the children.
Clear and convincing evidence therefore existed on the record to support the trial court’s finding
that there was a reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed if returned to
respondent’s home. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
For the same reasons, the record also supports the trial court’s finding that termination was not
contrary to the best interests of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
-1-
We also reject respondent’s contention that she did not receive effective assistance of
counsel at trial. A review of the record demonstrates that none of the alleged errors by trial
counsel prejudiced respondent. That is, there is no reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
alleged errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. See In re CR, 250 Mich
App 185, 198; 646 NW2d 506 (2002). Similarly, services are not mandated in all situations, and
the trial court did not clearly err in determining that the agency was not required to provide
services in this case. See, e.g., In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 26 n 4; 610 NW2d 563 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-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.
