IN RE TERRY HUTTON COLVIN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TERRY HUTTON COLVIN,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 6, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
MARK WILLIAM FOREMAN,
No. 277930
Isabella Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-000029-NA
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JACQUELINE SUE MORRIS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of TERRY HUTTON COLVIN,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
JACQUELINE SUE MORRIS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARK WILLIAM FOREMAN,
Respondent.
No. 277931
Isabella Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-000029-NA
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Borrello and Gleicher, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right a circuit court order
terminating their parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (l), and (m). We affirm. We
are deciding these appeals without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondents are the parents of Terry Hutton Colvin. In 2001, a circuit court terminated
respondent father’s parental rights to four children. In 1994 and again in 2005, respondent
mother released her parental rights to two children after termination petitions were filed. Both
respondents received an extensive array of parenting and mental health services in conjunction
with the previous termination proceedings, as well as during the instant proceeding. The record
clearly and convincingly establishes that with respect to both respondents, attempts at
rehabilitation failed.
Because proof of the prior terminations is the only prerequisite to termination under
subsections (l) and (m), any evidence that the parent may improve through participation in
additional services is irrelevant. Our review of the record confirms that both respondents
demonstrated significant, longstanding emotional problems that constitute insurmountable
obstacles to reunification.
Further, ample evidence supports the circuit court’s finding that termination of
respondents’ parental rights does not contravene the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In
re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Therefore, the circuit court did
not clearly err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to the child. Id. at 356-357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Bill Schuette
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
-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.
