IN RE ANTONIO ORENDAIN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MARCO ORENDAIN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
February 26, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 280238
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-052150-NA
DANIELLE M. GREENE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARCO ORENDAIN,
Respondent.
In the Matter of ANTONIO ORENDAIN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 280239
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-052151-NA
DANIELLE M. GREENE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARCO ORENDAIN,
-1-
Respondent.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Jansen and Davis, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent Danielle M. Greene challenges an order
terminating her parental rights to her twin sons pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (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). Respondent admitted that her parental rights to her other three children
were terminated in California. She acknowledged a history of mental health problems, which
included several hospitalizations as recently as 2006. Respondent was compliant with her
parent-agency agreement to the extent that she found safe and suitable housing, remained drug
free, and completed parenting classes. However, respondent failed to attend individual therapy
after her therapist left on maternity leave. Respondent suffered from a personality disorder and
lacked insight into those aberrant personality characteristics. She was not a candidate for
medication, and the only way of dealing with her personality disorder, it seemed, was through
consistent and intense counseling. Also notable was respondent’s apparent lack of insight
regarding her mental health. At times she acknowledged that she had mental health issues, but
she could not testify about what the issues were or how they should be addressed. She admitted
prior hospitalizations but was steadfast in her belief that the hospitalizations were unnecessary.
She blamed her mother for involuntary commitments and failed to acknowledge that a problem
existed. Respondent’s delicate mental health also manifested itself in how she treated her
caseworkers. Respondent’s continued problems with her mental health supported termination
pursuant to subsections 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).
Having found the foregoing subsections proven by clear and convincing evidence, the
trial court was obligated to terminate respondent’s parental rights unless it appeared, on the
whole record, that termination was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The instances that the
workers pointed to during respondent’s visits with the children – her giving them 100 percent
fruit juice and only letting them both out of their car seats and strollers for limited periods of
time – were not instances of abuse or neglect. In fact, the workers acknowledged that respondent
attended each of her visits and was late only on occasion. Respondent was always happy to see
the children and play with them. She brought them appropriate foods and interacted with them
well. She would, however, become stressed when one or both boys became upset. Respondent
admitted that she was not sure how bonded the children were with her since she only saw them
once a week. There was no doubt that respondent loved her children, but she simply was not in a
position to care for them due to her unstable mental health. They were entitled to permanence
and stability.
-2-
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-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.
