IN RE KIRSTEN ERIN GREEN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KIRSTEN ERIN GREEN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 19, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 275131
Branch Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-003375-NA
DAVID ALLEN GREEN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SAMANTHA ADELL MICHAEL,
Respondent.
In the Matter of KIRSTEN ERIN GREEN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 275187
Branch Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-003375-NA
SAMANTHA ADELL MICHAEL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID ALLEN GREEN,
Respondent.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Markey and Smolenski, JJ.
-1-
PER CURIAM.
Respondents appeal as of right the trial court’s order terminating their parental rights to
their minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (i). We affirm.
Respondent father first challenges the trial court’s finding of jurisdiction. At the time the
lower court found jurisdiction over the child, respondent father was not the legal father, and
therefore, not an interested party. Nonetheless, respondent mother’s attorney agreed that her
admissions on the record were sufficient grounds for the trial court to have jurisdiction under
MCL 712A.2(b)(1). Respondent mother admitted that she and respondent father were
unemployed, they had recently moved into someone else’s trailer with four other adults and their
belongings were still in totes, and they planned to share an 8-foot-by-8-foot bedroom with the
baby. We agree that, based on these admissions, there were sufficient grounds for the trial court
to assert jurisdiction.
Respondents both contend that the grounds for termination were not proven by clear and
convincing evidence. We review the trial court’s findings of fact in termination proceedings for
clear error. MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). To
terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory grounds for
termination in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been met by clear and convincing evidence. In re
McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). "Once a ground for termination is
established, the court must issue an order terminating parental rights unless there exists clear
evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the child's best interests." In re Trejo,
462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Although the trial court found sufficient evidence under MCL 712A.19b(3)(i), our review
of the lower court record reveals that there was limited evidence about the circumstances of the
prior terminations. Accordingly, this statutory ground was not demonstrated by clear and
convincing evidence.
Nonetheless, there was clear and convincing evidence to satisfy MCL 712A.19b(3)(g),
that respondents failed to provide proper care or custody for the child and there is no reasonable
expectation that they will be able to do so within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.
Respondent mother cared for the child alone during the day for a couple months, but she never
demonstrated that she could meet her child’s needs independently. Respondents had just two
weeks before trial obtained independent housing after spending several years living with friends,
and it was unlikely they could financially maintain that housing. Respondent father depended
almost entirely on respondent mother’s income. Respondent mother admitted she did not know
whether her income could pay their bills. They had no savings and had received assistance for
move-in expenses. Respondent mother’s paycheck barely covered the next month’s rent when it
was due. There was clear and convincing evidence under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).
There was also clear and convincing evidence under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). The
conditions that led to adjudication were that respondent mother was not providing the newborn
child with safe and stable housing. Although respondents had managed to live in an apartment
for two weeks before trial, there was clear and convincing evidence that there was no reasonable
likelihood that the lack of suitable permanent housing would be rectified within a reasonable
-2-
time considering the child’s age. Respondent mother was the sole source of income and she
admitted that she did not know if her income could pay the bills. Neither respondent had any
history of or demonstrated any aptitude for fiscal responsibility. The trial court did not err in
finding that at least one statutory ground for termination was demonstrated by clear and
convincing evidence.
Respondent mother also contends that termination of her parental rights was not in the
child’s best interests citing her bond with the child. However, despite this bond, respondent
mother’s failure to demonstrate, considering the age of the child, that she could meet the child’s
basic needs for financial sustenance and safe permanent housing supported that trial court’s
conclusion that termination was not clearly against the child’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-3-
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.
