IN RE DORI'ASIA ADAMS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DORI’ASIA ADAMS, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 6, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 271324
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-117364-NA
DORITA ADAMS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the order of the trial court terminating her parental rights
to her minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (j), and (l). We affirm.
Respondent contends that the trial court erred in failing to produce a transcript of a
hearing held before the trial court on November 8, 2003, and thereby hindered respondent’s
ability to challenge issues on appeal allegedly related to that hearing. Also, based on the absence
of a record, respondent claims a statutory and constitutional violation of her right to an attorney
at the November 8, 2003 hearing. In an appeal to this Court, the appellant is responsible for
securing the filing of the trial court transcript. MCR 7.210(B)(1)(a). Where a transcript is
unavailable, MCR 7.210(B)(2) requires the appellant to file a settled statement of facts as a
substitute for the transcript. This is obtained by the appellant filing a proposed statement of facts
with the trial court, after which the trial court entertains objections. The trial court is then
required to certify a statement of facts as an “accurate, fair, and complete statement of the
proceedings before it,” and the statement of facts, together with the certifying order, is then filed
with this Court. MCR 7.210(B)(2). In this case, respondent failed to seek a settling of the record
from the circuit court, and she cannot now allege error by the trial court for the missing record.
Next, we find without merit respondent’s contention that she was denied the effective
assistance of counsel because she was represented by various attorneys at different stages of the
proceedings. Respondent has failed to preserve this issue by requesting an evidentiary hearing or
a new trial. See People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 658-659; 620 NW2d
19 (2000). Moreover, respondent has failed to establish that any of her attorneys’ performances
fell below the standard of objective reasonableness, or that that the representation so prejudiced
-1-
her that she was denied a fair trial. See In re CR, 250 Mich App 185, 198; 646 NW2d 506
(2002).
Finally, we find unavailing respondent’s contention that the trial court erred by
terminating her parental rights because she would not take the prescription drug, Paxil. Contrary
to respondent’s characterization, the trial court did not penalize respondent for failing to take the
prescribed medication. Rather, the trial court found that respondent had complied with some
aspects of the agency’s plan for reunification, but had failed to address her ongoing marijuana
addiction. Specifically, although the case had been pending before the trial court for two-and-ahalf years, respondent by her own admission continued to use marijuana several times each day
and refused to participate in drug treatment. In addition, the trial court found that respondent had
not resolved her ongoing domestic violence issue. The trial court therefore found that
termination was warranted pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We agree that these
findings are supported by the record. In addition, the trial court did not err when it found that
termination was warranted under MCL 712A.19b(3)(l) because respondent’s parental rights to
two other children had been terminated previously.
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.
