IN RE JAKEYA HARRIS MINOR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of TREJUAN ALLEN, Minor. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, UNPUBLISHED April 26, 2007 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 273890 Kent Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 05-051796-NA LATISHA ALLEN, Respondent-Appellant, and JEFFREY HARRIS and DOUGLAS CAREY, Respondents. In the Matter of JADA LUCIA ALLEN, Minor. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 273891 Kent Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 05-052476-NA LATISHA ALLEN, Respondent-Appellant, and JEFFREY HARRIS, Respondent. In the Matter of JAKEYA HARRIS, Minor. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee -1- v No. 273892 Kent Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 05-051797-NA LATISHA ALLEN, Respondent-Appellant, and JEFFREY HARRIS, Respondent. In the Matter of JADA LUCIA ALLEN, Minor. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 273893 Kent Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 05-052476-NA JEFFREY HARRIS, Respondent-Appellant, and LATISHA ALLEN, Respondent. In the Matter of JAKEYA HARRIS, Minor. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 273894 Kent Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 05-051797-NA JEFFREY HARRIS, Respondent-Appellant, and LATISHA ALLEN, Respondent. -2- Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Murphy and Cooper, JJ. PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, respondent mother Latisha Allen appeals by leave granted the termination of her parental rights to the three minor children.1 Respondent father Jeffrey Harris appeals by leave granted the termination of his parental rights to his two daughters.2 We affirm. I. Basic Facts And Procedural History In May 2005, a petition for temporary custody of Trejuan Allen and Jakeya Harris was filed, alleging that Jeffrey Harris was charged with delivery and manufacture of marijuana, that Latisha Allen whipped Trejuan Allen with a belt leaving substantial marks and bruises on his buttocks, legs, and inner and outer thighs and forced him to remain in a closet for hours, that Latisha Allen kept Trejuan Allen out of school, and that Latisha Allen used a belt to discipline Jakeya Harris, who was then three years old. In July 2005, a petition for temporary custody was filed regarding Jada Lucia Allen. The petition alleged that Jada Lucia Allen was born testing positive for cocaine and that her siblings Trejuan Allen and Jakeya Harris were already in foster care. Following the children’s placement in foster care, Jeffrey Harris was referred for a psychological evaluation. Dr. Spahn, the evaluator, diagnosed Jeffrey Harris with cannabis abuse in the early stages of recovery and narcissistic personality. Jeffrey Harris admitted that he used and sold marijuana and cocaine. Dr. Spahn recommended intensive outpatient treatment and counseling and noted that, at times, Jeffrey Harris saw his parental rights as an entitlement without responsibilities. Dr. Spahn stated that Jeffrey Harris’s prognosis was fair, at best. Jeffrey Harris completed parenting classes and showed up to the majority of his parenting time sessions. He failed to attend three of his parenting time sessions, but sent his mother instead. Jeffrey Harris generally did well during visits, brought food for the children, and interacted with them. At first, Jeffrey Harris had difficulty balancing the needs of all three children at visits, especially because Jada Lucia Allen was so young. Jeffrey Harris improved in his ability to balance the needs of the children and tried to spend time with each child. There was no doubt that Jeffrey Harris loved the children greatly and that there was a bond between them. Jeffrey Harris was not Trejuan Allen’s biological father, but he took a parental role with him, and Trejuan Allen felt that Jeffrey Harris was a father figure to him. At the termination hearing in July 2006, the child welfare specialist testified that Jeffrey Harris was unemployed from December 2005 to July 2006. However, he had just obtained a 1 MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), and (g). 2 MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). -3- new job through a temporary work agency. The child welfare specialist testified that Jeffrey Harris’s housing was appropriate. Jeffrey Harris had the following convictions: attempted possession of cocaine in 1992, attempted felonious assault in 1995, possession with intent to distribute cocaine in 1997, possession of cocaine in 2001, delivery and manufacture of marijuana in March 2005, and maintaining a drug house and possession of marijuana in August 2005. Jeffrey Harris’s hair follicle tests were positive for marijuana in August 2005, March 2006, and June 2006. His June test was also positive for cocaine. However, 11 of the 14 urine screens that he completed for his probation officer were clean. The child welfare specialist was concerned because Jeffrey Harris continued to use substances despite reported sobriety. It appeared that Jeffrey Harris lacked understanding or insight into the affect substance abuse had on his ability to parent and his ability to possibly gain custody of his children, especially because he admitted using drugs in June 2006, a month before the termination hearing. Jeffrey Harris told the child welfare specialist that he used drugs because he was stressed. The child welfare specialist was concerned that, if three children were added to his life, his stress would increase, and she wondered how he would cope. Jeffrey Harris was unable to demonstrate six months of sobriety, which was what foster care looked for before sending children home. The child welfare specialist recommended termination of Jeffrey Harris’s parental rights because the conditions leading to adjudication continued to exist. Jada Lucia Allen entered foster care because of Latisha Allen’s cocaine use while pregnant. Latisha Allen stated that she did not think about being pregnant; she just wanted to get high. She admitted that she went on a cocaine binge after the older children were removed. Following the children’s entry into foster care, Latisha Allen attended a therapy program, but she withdrew from the services in November or December 2005. The termination report indicated that Latisha Allen was very involved early on in treatment, but consistently relapsed and shifted her drug of choice from cocaine to alcohol. Latisha Allen returned to the program in April 2006 and completed intensive outpatient treatment for substance abuse. However, it took her longer than scheduled to complete because she missed 15 sessions. Latisha Allen’s hair follicle tests were positive for cocaine in July and October 2005. She did not attend two scheduled tests on January 5 and January 10, 2006. On January 11, 2006, she again tested positive for cocaine. Her tests in April 2006 and June 2006 were also positive for cocaine. Her urine screens were clean in August 2005, November 2005, April 2006, and June 2006. But on July 19, 2005, her screen was positive. Latisha Allen did not complete seven of her scheduled screens between July 2005 and May 2006. The child welfare specialist testified that Latisha Allen loved her children greatly and had a great bond with them. Often, she did well during visits. She had one visit a week with just Jada Lucia Allen and another visit with all three children. She interacted with the children, got down on the floor and played with them, tried to spend time with each one, and asked Trejuan Allen about school. However, she also often spoke negatively about their foster parents, which upset the children. In the two and one-half months preceding trial, Latisha Allen cancelled two visits and missed two other visits because she was in jail for a week. She was also late for six visits. In April 2006, Latisha Allen told the children they could not come home because they were not ready, which confused the children. -4- Latisha Allen completed parenting classes in May 2006 and did well. The child welfare specialist did a home visit in January 2006, and Latisha Allen’s home was clean and appropriate. But Latisha Allen cancelled several follow-up appointments in May, June, and July 2006. Latisha Allen reported that she had been employed since November 2005, but she had not provided pay stubs as requested. The children, especially Trejuan Allen, indicated several times that they had anxiety about returning home to Latisha Allen. The children said that they were afraid Latisha Allen was going to whip them again. Trejuan Allen also made comments about seeing Latisha Allen smoke funny little pipes. Trejuan Allen’s therapist reported that he felt secure in foster care and that he expressed fear that he would be removed from his foster mother’s care. The child welfare specialist testified that the children’s need for stability was very high. The child welfare specialist asked Latisha Allen to apologize to the children for the physical abuse and explain to the children why it would not happen again. Latisha Allen said that she did that, but the children said that she did not. The child welfare specialist recommended that Latisha Allen’s parental rights be terminated because the condition of adjudication continued to exist despite completion of parenting classes and because Latisha Allen’s drug use had not rectified despite notice and recommendations to do so. The trial court found that the Department of Human Services had established that subsections (c)(i) and (g) had been met as to both Latisha Allen and Jeffrey Harris, and that subsection (c)(ii) had been met as to Latisha Allen. The trial court also determined that termination was not contrary to the children’s best interests and terminated Latisha Allen’s and Jeffrey Harris’s parental rights. II. Termination Of Parental Rights A. Standard Of Review To terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination has been met by clear and convincing evidence.3 We review the trial court’s order terminating parental rights for clear error.4 We defer to the trial court’s special opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses.5 A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.6 Once a petitioner has established a statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court shall order termination of parental rights, unless the trial court finds from evidence on the whole 3 In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). 4 MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 672; 692 NW2d 708 (2005). 5 MCR 2.613(C); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). 6 In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). -5- record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests.7 We also review the trial court’s decision regarding the child’s best interests for clear error.8 B. Latisha Allen’s Appeal 1. Clear And Convincing Evidence We conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of Latisha Allen’s parental rights under subsections (c)(i) and (ii) was established by clear and convincing evidence. With regard to subsection (c)(i), the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the conditions of adjudication continued to exist and that there was no reasonable likelihood that they would be rectified within a reasonable time. Although Latisha Allen completed two parenting classes, the foster care worker continued to be concerned about Latisha Allen’s treatment of the children, including yelling at Jakeya Harris during parenting time, confusing the children by speaking negatively about their foster parents, and telling the children it was their fault they could not come home. Latisha Allen also claimed that she apologized to the children for the physical abuse, but the children said that she did not and were anxious that they would be harmed if returned to Latisha Allen. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the conditions of adjudication continued to exist and, because little progress had been made in 14 months, in finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that Latisha Allen would rectify the condition within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages. With regard to subsection (c)(ii), the trial court also did not clearly err in finding that, at least with respect to Trejuan Allen and Jakeya Harris, another condition existed that would cause the children to come within the trial court’s jurisdiction. That other condition was Latisha Allen’s substance abuse. Latisha Allen was given notice of this other condition when the petition for temporary custody of Jada Lucia Allen was filed and a hearing was held on that petition in which Latisha Allen admitted substance abuse. Latisha Allen was given a year to rectify the condition and failed every single hair follicle test given to her during that time. Although Latisha Allen was in substance abuse treatment and claimed to have been clean for two months preceding the termination trial, there was no documentation of that sobriety. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the condition continued to exist and that it would not be rectified within a reasonable time where Latisha Allen had 14 months to show a period of sobriety and did not. Based on Latisha Allen’s continued parenting issues and substance use, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that Latisha Allen was not able to provide proper care and custody for the children and did not clearly err in finding that she would not be able to do so within a 7 MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 353, 354-355, 364-365. 8 In re Trejo, supra at 356-357. -6- reasonable time considering the children’s ages.9 In sum, the evidence was clear and convincing that her parental rights were properly terminated. 2. Children’s Best Interests We conclude that the evidence did not show that the children’s best interests precluded termination of Latisha Allen’s parental rights. The trial court did not clearly err in its best interests determination where the children said that they were anxious about returning home to Latisha Allen and that they were afraid that she would whip them again. Trejuan Allen especially demonstrated a high need for stability and, after 14 months of foster care, Latisha Allen had no documented sobriety. Although there was evidence that Latisha Allen loved her children greatly and that the children enjoyed a strong bond with her, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the children’s best interests did not preclude termination of Latisha Allen’s parental rights. Therefore, the trial court did not err in its best interests determination. C. Jeffrey Harris’s Appeal 1. Clear And Convincing Evidence We conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of Jeffrey Harris’s parental rights under subsections (c)(i) and (g) was established by clear and convincing evidence. The condition leading to adjudication was Jeffrey Harris’s substance abuse. Jeffrey Harris was required to remain drug free for this case and as a term of his probation. Although Jeffrey Harris was clean for several weeks or months at a time, he used marijuana and cocaine just before the termination trial. The foster care worker testified that Jeffrey Harris’s explanation that he used substances because he was stressed concerned her because returning the children to him was likely to add more stress. The use of substances so close to the termination trial showed that the conditions leading to adjudication continued to exist and that Jeffrey Harris could not provide proper care and custody for the children. Additionally, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that Jeffrey Harris could not rectify the conditions leading to adjudication within a reasonable time or provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time where Jeffrey Harris could not remain sober for 14 months. 2. Children’s Best Interests The trial court also did not clearly err in its best interests determination. Although Jeffrey Harris had a strong bond with his daughters and with Trejuan Allen, whom he treated as a son, Jeffrey Harris continued to use drugs. Jeffrey Harris argues on appeal that it was in the children’s best interests to grant him more time for relapse prevention services; however, the children had waited a long time for stability considering their young ages. Jeffrey Harris had every incentive to remain sober for his children and for his probation; yet, he still used drugs a 9 MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). -7- mere month before the termination trial. Therefore, the trial court did not err in its best interests determination. We affirm. /s/ William C. Whitbeck /s/ William B. Murphy /s/ Jessica R. Cooper -8-

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.