IN RE RICHARDSON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MARY JOY RICHARDSON and
RACHEL LOUISE RICHARDSON, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 31, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 278725
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2005-058565-NA
NENA JO CONTRERAS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Beckering, P.J., and Sawyer and Fort Hood, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to
the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
This Court reviews a 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). If the trial court
determines that petitioner established the existence of one or more statutory grounds for
termination by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court must terminate respondent’s
parental rights unless it determines that to do so is clearly not in the child’s best interests. In re
Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Respondent had a long history with Protective Services, dating back to 1983. The minor
children at issue in this appeal came into care because the home that they lived in was
condemned and it was dirty and cluttered, respondent was not protecting the minor children from
inappropriate behavior in the home such as marijuana use by others living there, and respondent
was not caring for the emotional, medical, and physical needs of the minor children. Although
respondent had been receiving services, these issues still existed. Respondent was provided with
a parent agency agreement and a variety of services. Although she did work on many of the
terms of her parent agency agreement, respondent was not in substantial compliance with the
agreement at the time of termination trial, which was almost two years after the petition had been
filed, and she had not made significant progress towards change.
-1-
Respondent was evaluated by three separate psychologists. One of the psychologists
invalidated the evaluation because he believed that respondent presented herself in an overly
positive manner. The other two psychologists were concerned with respondent’s ability to parent
the minor children and her ability to change, and both recommended termination of her parental
rights. One of the psychologists made this recommendation after meeting with the minor
children. While respondent did complete parenting classes, there was concern that she did not
benefit from these classes and would not be able to appropriately parent the minor children.
Respondent was required to participate in individual therapy, and her therapist indicated that
respondent would need long-term therapy and that they were continuing to work on parenting
issues.
Respondent had identified some inappropriate sexual behavior of her husband and his
fantasies involving the minor children, yet she did not understand the significant risk this could
pose to the minor children and did not immediately leave him. She continued to live with her
husband for three or four more months and did not file for divorce until a few weeks before the
date of the termination trial. In light of the fact that sexual issues were a concern in the
household for many years, respondent’s lack of judgment on this issue was a significant concern
to the court with respect to the minor children’s safety and welfare.
Respondent’s visitation was terminated in June 2006, apparently because she shared
some information about the inappropriate behavior with the minor children, and respondent did
not make any inquiries about the minor children after that. She did not contact the case worker
on a regular basis as required after her visitation was terminated. Respondent claimed that she
thought that she was not allowed to inquire about how the minor children were doing even from
the case worker after her visitation was terminated. On the other hand, she claimed that she tried
to reach the case worker and could not reach her because her mailbox was full and could not
leave a message.
Respondent was required under the terms of the parent agency agreement to provide the
case worker with proof of employment and proof that she paid her rent and utilities. Respondent
provided the case worker with only one pay stub and brought proof of payment of her rent and
utilities to the termination trial. Respondent was provided with many services over the years and
was given many opportunities to learn how to more appropriately parent her children, to address
the issues that she was dealing with, and to make the changes required so that she would not put
her children at risk. Two years after the most recent petition involving her children was filed,
respondent was still dealing with some significant issues involving her failure to protect and care
for the minor children. The trial court did not clearly err when it found the evidence clear and
convincing to terminate her parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j).
The trial court did not clearly err in its best interests determination. The trial court could
not have been more correct when it stated that the minor children were entitled to, at a minimum,
-2-
a safe home. Respondent was unable to provide them with that and after two years in temporary
care, the minor children deserved the opportunity for stability.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
