IN RE CLAIBORNE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DYEMESHEANN CLAIBORNE
and ALMA CLAIBORNE, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 1, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 270099
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-115391-NA
SANFORD CLAIBORNE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TANYA CLEMONS,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent1 appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights
to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), (j), and (k). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that at least one of the statutory grounds for
termination of respondent’s parental rights was established by clear and convincing evidence.
MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). At the outset of this
proceeding, respondent made an effort to care for the children. However, clear and convincing
evidence showed that he failed to benefit from the domestic violence classes that he completed in
2003, failed to thereafter complete counseling, substance abuse treatment and another set of
domestic violence classes, and maintained independent housing for only four months of this 33month proceeding. He failed to rectify the issues of domestic violence, substance abuse, lack of
1
Because respondent Tanya Clemons is not a party to this appeal, references to “respondent”
refer to Sanford Claiborne only.
-1-
legal custody, and lack of independent housing that caused Dyemesheann and Alma to become
court wards, and thus the trial court did not err in terminating his parental rights under
subsections 19b(3)(c)(i) and (ii).
Clear and convincing evidence showed that respondent failed to provide proper care or
custody for the children, and that there was no reasonable expectation that he would be able to do
so within a reasonable time. He was offered services for 33 months but was able to parent the
children independently for only three to four months before returning to his mother’s residence.
He also did not proactively seek the children’s custody after June 2004, but rather, allowed their
mother to reunite with the children with disastrous effect, and became completely noncompliant
with services after April 2005, thus failing to rectify his alcohol abuse, domestic violence and
housing issues. Respondent’s father also testified that respondent was not able to provide proper
care for the children. The trial court thus did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights
under subsection 19b(3)(g).
Further, although the evidence did not show that respondent physically harmed his
children in an affirmative way, he added domestic violence to their home life, harmed them
emotionally by failing to benefit from services and become able to care for them within a
reasonable time, and was responsible for three-year-old Dyemesheann’s and two-year-old
Alma’s wardship and residence with four different caretakers during their young lives. Thus, the
trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights under subsection 19b(3)(j).
Respondent’s failure to benefit from services and obtain custody of the children instead
of their mother did not directly cause Dyemesheann’s severe burns. His acts or omissions were
too attenuated to provide clear and convincing evidence of any of the elements of subsection
19b(3)(k). Accordingly, the trial court erred by relying on this subsection in terminating
respondent’s parental rights.
Lastly, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly contrary to the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462
Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The evidence clearly showed that respondent, after
being offered services for 33 months, was not able to properly care for the children and did not
vigorously pursue their custody. After three years of unsuccessful attempts at reunification and
several different caretakers, it was time for the children to have one set of stable, permanent,
competent parents to raise them.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
