IN RE MATTHEW JAMES KENNETH ELWAY GOULD MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MATTHEW JAMES KENNETH
ELWAY GOULD, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 20, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 277927
Lake Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-000981-NA
MARIANNE SOWLE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Hoekstra and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to the
minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) and (j). We affirm. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
We review the trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). Respondent’s parental rights
to two other children were terminated in May 2002 on grounds of emotional neglect and failure
to protect. In August 2003, the minor child was removed from respondent’s care because of the
environmental unfitness of the home. Respondent successfully complied with the parent-agency
agreement, in particular on the issue of managing her depression, and the child was returned to
her care in December 2003. By October 2004, respondent had remarried and become the
primary caretaker for three stepchildren plus the minor child. Respondent received numerous
services to assist her in parenting this blended family, but there was little to no improvement in
her preferential treatment of the minor child and the abuse and neglect inflicted upon one
stepchild in particular. After respondent and her husband failed to follow through on some
promised changes in their parenting techniques in June 2006 and requested the termination of
Wraparound services, an August 2006 petition was filed that sought the termination of
respondent’s parental rights to the minor child.
An analysis under MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) requires a court to examine the success of
rehabilitation efforts provided in the past. In this case, there are many such efforts to examine,
but the most relevant are those efforts directed at the same problems under scrutiny in the latest
proceeding. The problems in this latest proceeding involved respondent’s parenting abilities;
-1-
therefore, the prior rehabilitation efforts directed at respondent’s depression and her unfit home
were of little to no relevance to the court’s analysis. A review of those prior rehabilitation efforts
aimed at improving respondent’s parenting skills showed they had no benefit. Therefore, the
trial court did not clearly err when it based its termination order upon MCL 712A.19b(3)(i).
Termination was also warranted under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) because the risk of future harm
includes emotional damage inflicted upon a child who witnesses a parent abuse another child in
the house, and who feels guilty for receiving preferential treatment.
Whether termination is in the child’s best interests is a close question because the child
was strongly bonded to respondent. However, when considered in light of the concerns
expressed by many experienced witnesses, and the fact that the abuse inflicted by respondent
upon a certain stepchild was very severe, we find no clear error was made in the best interests
determination. MCL 712A.19b(5).
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/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.
