IN RE LAMARIO JORDAN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LAMARIO JORDAN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
February 21, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 279490
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-384283
DWAYNE L RAMSEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LAKISHA JORDAN,
Respondent.
In the Matter of LAMARIO JORDAN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 279491
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-384283
LAKISHA JORDAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DWAYNE L RAMSEY,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: White, P.J., and Hoekstra and Schuette, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j).
Respondent mother’s parental rights were also terminated under MCL 712A.19b(3)(i). We
affirm.
Respondent mother’s parental rights to four other children had been terminated in May
2004 for failure to rectify the alcoholism, lack of stable housing, and lack of employment that
had led to her neglect of the children. She appealed that decision, and this Court affirmed the
termination order.1 Two and a half years after that termination, a referral was made to protective
services alleging that respondent mother had given birth to the child who is the subject of this
proceeding2. Petitioner requested permanent custody in the original petition and did not offer
reunification services to either respondent.
Respondent father argues that he was penalized for respondent mother’s prior
termination, and that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights in the absence of
reunification services. When termination is the agency’s goal, there is no requirement that
reunification services be provided; however, MCL 712A.18f(1)(b) does require petitioner to
justify a decision not to offer services. In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 26 n 4; 610 NW2d 563
(2000). When this case commenced, respondent father stated that he was not interested in
planning for the child, was in violation of his probation and was shortly thereafter arrested for
failure to comply with the ordered conditions of probation, showed a marked lack of concern for
supporting his 15-year-old daughter as evidenced by a large child support arrearage, and showed
a lack of insight into the impact respondent mother’s alcoholism had on her ability to parent.
Those facts justified petitioner’s original goal of termination, and as a matter of law petitioner
was not required to provide reunification services. Therefore, the trial court did not err in
terminating respondent-father’s parental rights in the absence of reunification services.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that at least one statutory ground for
termination of respondents’ parental rights was established by clear and convincing evidence.
MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337, 344-345; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The evidence
showed that the prior termination of respondent mother’s parental rights was predicated on
chronic neglect of the children due to failure to rectify issues of alcohol abuse and unstable
housing, and lack of resources to provide for the children. When this proceeding commenced the
child showed no sign of neglect, but respondent mother’s condition was substantially the same;
she lacked housing, employment or other resources, and necessities for the baby, and she had not
sought treatment for her alcoholism. Subsequent testimony established that respondent mother
1
In re Jordan/Jhons, Minors, unpublished memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued
December 16, 2004 (Docket No. 256028).
2
That referral was based on a birth match notification, rather than an allegation of abuse or
neglect.
-2-
still used alcohol, and she failed to provide a requested screen to controvert that fact. Given little
change in circumstance and a long history of failure to rectify conditions leading to neglect, there
was no reasonable expectation that respondent mother would be able to provide proper care for
the child within a reasonable time. Inability to provide proper care established the likelihood that
the child would be harmed if returned to respondent mother.
With regard to respondent father, the evidence showed that he failed to provide care for
the child at birth and initially stated a lack of interest in planning for him. He had failed to
comply with ordered conditions of probation since 2005, had not addressed issues of anger
management and domestic violence as ordered in 2004, felt that alcohol use was not a problem
for respondent mother even though it previously led to termination of her parental rights, and
failed to adequately support his other child. By the time of trial, respondent father was
committed to a relationship with respondent mother, but that further demonstrated his lack of
insight into safe and proper parenting because there was no reasonable expectation that she
would become a fit parent within a reasonable time. There was no reasonable expectation that
respondent father would provide proper care or custody for the child within a reasonable time,
and therefore the child would likely suffer the harm of neglect if returned to him.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents’ parental rights was
clearly contrary to the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondents argue that public policy dictates a child’s best
interests are served by remaining in the care of his biological parents, and it was contrary to the
child’s best interests not to provide an opportunity for reunification. However, the facts at the
outset of the proceeding showed that respondent mother’s circumstances had not changed and
there was no reasonable expectation that either respondent would be able to provide proper care
for the child within a reasonable time. Therefore, the child’s best interests would not have been
served by pursuing reunification.
Clear and convincing evidence supported termination of both respondents’ parental rights
at the initial disposition, and the trial court was mandated to terminate those rights in the absence
of evidence showing that doing so was clearly contrary to the child’s best interests. No such
evidence was presented. There was no evidence of a bond with respondent father, and the child
was removed from respondent mother at one month of age. No evidence was presented showing
detriment to the child from termination of parental rights, and the trial court did not err in finding
that termination was not clearly contrary to his best interests, but was in his best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.
