IN RE EVAN LAKIES MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of EVAN LAKIES, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 29, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 279749
Grand Traverse Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-001994-NA
LAURA LAKIES,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Beckering, P.J., and Sawyer and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from an order terminating her parental rights to the minor
child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not 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). The evidence demonstrated that the mother suffered from paranoid
schizophrenia. She had a history of noncompliance with mental health services. This was not
likely to change in the future because the mother did not believe that schizophrenia was an
accurate diagnosis. Her testimony confirmed, however, that she does suffer from delusional
thoughts. The mother was hospitalized against her will in December 2006 and remained
hospitalized until the child’s birth. At the time the goal was reunification. The hope was that the
mother would receive services that would allow her mental illness to remain in check and allow
her to care for the child on her own. Testimony revealed that the mother was extremely attentive
to the child and very involved during his stay at the neo-natal intensive care unit. However, the
mother made statements about bathing him and feeding him that caused the staff to worry that
she was not in a position to care for the child. She also continued to make delusional statements.
The mother argues that the mere diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia does not necessitate
termination of a parent’s parental rights. However, the evidence revealed that the mother’s
mental illness would preclude her from appropriately caring for the child. The evidence showed
that the mother was extremely suspicious of medical personnel and their diagnosis. She did not
believe that the child needed a tracheotomy or a feeding tube. The consensus among the
prosecution’s witnesses was that the mother loved the child and would never intentionally harm
him, but they all feared that the mother might cause the child harm by hyperextending his neck
-1-
or removing his feeding tube. She was admonished during visits with the child that she was
hyperextending his neck, but she persisted in doing so. The child needed specialized care and,
with the mother being so skeptical of his needs, it was not unrealistic to fear that she would
unintentionally harm the child.
Having found the foregoing subsections proven by clear and convincing evidence, the
trial court was obligated to terminate the mother’s parental rights unless it appeared, on the
whole record, that termination was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In
re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). There was no question that the mother
truly loved the child and expressed a desire to care for him. However, her mental illness was an
impediment to her ability to effectively parent this special needs child. The respondent has failed
to show that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests.
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.
