IN RE AYANNA CHELICIA KENNEDY-ZELEDON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AYANNA CHELICIA
KENNEDY-ZELEDON, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 29, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 277247
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-710386-NA
GABRIELA ZELEDON,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Beckering, P.J., and Sawyer and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights
to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989); In re Conley, 216 Mich App 41, 42; 549 NW2d 353 (1996). The
conditions that led to the adjudication included respondent’s repeated drug use during her
pregnancy and the child testing positive for cocaine at birth. Services were provided for more
than a year, but respondent failed to acknowledge her issue with drugs, missed numerous drug
screens, and failed to meaningfully participate in or benefit from the services offered. Contrary
to what respondent argues, simply attending various counseling sessions, visits, and submitting
to some drug screens was not enough to preclude termination of her parental rights. Rather, the
evidence clearly established that respondent failed to achieve the principal and fundamental
objective of addressing her substance abuse problem, and she failed to demonstrate a willingness
and ability to care for the child.
Considering respondent’s history of drug use, conduct, and lack of any meaningful
engagement in substance abuse treatment, it was not reasonably likely that her circumstances
would sufficiently change or improve within a reasonable time. The trial court did not clearly err
in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing
evidence.
-1-
Also, the evidence failed to show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly contrary to the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354;
612 NW2d 407 (2000). Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental
rights to the child. Id. at 356.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/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.
