IN RE BARZACK MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KALEIGH BARCZACK and
KRISTOPHER BARCZACK, a/k/a
CHRISTOPHER BARCZACK, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
April 26, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 274163
Jackson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-003368-NA
DOROTHY RUGER,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Kelly and Fort Hood, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to the
minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err by finding at least one statutory ground 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). The primary conditions of
adjudication were domestic violence, drug abuse, failure to treat and manage bipolar disorder,
and failure to supervise the children. Following a trial, the trial court initially denied petitioner’s
request for termination of respondent’s parental rights and respondent was allowed additional
time to address the barriers to reunification. Specifically, she was directed by the court to
comply with her medical regimen, attend all psychiatric reviews, re-engage in therapy, which she
had failed to complete earlier, and participate in an anger management program. Respondent
failed to accomplish any of these things and a second termination trial resulted in the order of
termination that is now before us on appeal.
Throughout this case, respondent failed to follow through consistently with treatment of
her bipolar disorder. There was evidence that she abused her prescription medication by taking
more than was prescribed. She missed many appointments with her psychiatrist, and did not
consistently maintain her medication regimen. Clearly her failure to treat and manage her mental
illness continued to exist at the time of termination, more than 182 days after the initial
dispositional order in this matter. MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). The evidence also indicated that
-1-
respondent failed to address and resolve the issue of domestic violence throughout these
proceedings. During the pendency of this case, respondent physically abused Kaleigh by
spanking her so forcefully as to leave extensive bruising on her buttocks. She also pleaded guilty
to domestic assault against her sister. Also during these proceedings, respondent moved in with
a man whom she had only known for several days. She continued to live with him at the time of
the first termination trial, yet testified at that time that this individual could be verbally abusive,
demanding and controlling. Respondent failed to participate in an anger management program
as required after the first termination trial. Throughout this matter, respondent has failed to
consistently provide drug screens. Even after the first termination trial, respondent had a screen
that was positive for marijuana and had an alcohol related driving offense. This record amply
demonstrated that the conditions of adjudication continued to exist, and the trial court did not
clearly err in so finding. The trial court also did not clearly err by finding no reasonable
likelihood that these conditions would be rectified within a reasonable time considering the ages
of the children. MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). Given respondent’s failure over these lengthy
proceedings to address the conditions of adjudication, it appears more than reasonable to
conclude that she will not successfully address them within a reasonable time considering the
ages of the children.
Termination of respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) was also proper.
Respondent failed to provide proper care and custody of the children by engaging in domestic
violence in their presence, failing to supervise them, failing to manage and treat her bipolar
disorder, and using drugs. The same evidence demonstrating that the conditions of adjudication
continued to exist and were unlikely to be rectified within a reasonable time, MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i), equally demonstrates that there is no reasonable likelihood that respondent
will be able to provide proper care and custody for the children within a reasonable time
considering their ages, MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), and the trial court did not clearly err in so finding.
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination was not clearly
contrary to the best interests of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5). Over the two-year pendency of
this case, respondent has shown no inclination to address the problems that caused the children to
be removed from her care, and there is no indication that she will be able to provide the
permanence and stability that the children need within the foreseeable future.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
