IN RE EASHA LEEARA BUFORD MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re LATOYA LAVERN MALLET, Minor.
UNPUBLISHED
March 13, 2008
LATOYA LAVERN MALLETT,
Appellee,
and
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 280741
Saginaw Juvenile Division
LC No. 06-030365-NA
ANTONIO SPRAGGS, a/k/a ANTONIO
MCDOWELL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LATRASA MALLETT,
Respondent.
In re MALLETT Minors.
LATOYA LAVERN MALLETT and
ANTOINETTE MALLETT,
Appellees,
and
-1-
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281484
Saginaw Juvenile Division
LC No. 06-030365-NA
LATARSA MALLETT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANTONIO SPRAGGS, a/k/a ANTONIO
MCDOWELL,
Respondent.
In re BUFORD Minors.
CAROL BUFORD and JEROME BUFORD,
Appellees,
and
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281485
Saginaw Juvenile Division
LC No. 06-030426-NA
LATARSA MALLETT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JEROME BUFORD,
Respondent.
-2-
In re EASHA LEEARA BUFORD, Minor.
EASHA LEEARA BUFORD,
Appellee,
and
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281507
Saginaw Juvenile Division
LC No. 06-030427-NA
LATARSA MALLETT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
EDDIE BUFORD,
Respondent.
Before: Saad, C.J., and Murphy and Donofrio, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this consolidated appeal, respondent Spraggs appeals as of right from the trial court
order terminating his rights to the minor children, Latoya and Antoinette Mallett, and respondent
Mallett appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to all the
minor children.1 Termination of parental rights was ordered pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i)
and (3)(g) with respect to both respondents, and, in addition, the court ordered termination
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(h) as to respondent Spraggs due to his incarceration in the state of
Illinois. We affirm.
1
The trial court also terminated the rights of Jerome Buford, but he is not a party to this appeal.
Eddie Buford was never determined to be the legal father of any of the children and is also not a
party to this appeal.
-3-
Respondent Spraggs argues on appeal that his due process rights were violated because
he was not permitted to participate telephonically in all of the proceedings. Because respondent
Spraggs never raised this due process issue below, it is forfeited and reviewed for plain error
affecting substantial rights. See In re Osborne (On Remand, After Remand), 237 Mich App 597,
606; 603 NW2d 824 (1999).
Applying the balancing test set forth in Mathews v Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335; 96 S Ct
893; 47 L Ed 2d 18 (1976), as utilized by this Court in In re Render, 145 Mich App 344, 348350; 377 NW2d 421 (1985), and In re Vasquez, 199 Mich App 44, 47-49; 501 NW2d 231
(1993), and which entails consideration of the private interest at stake, the risk of erroneous
deprivation of that interest, and consideration of the government’s interest, we find no due
process violation. Respondent Spraggs was aptly represented by counsel at each and every
hearing, Spraggs participated telephonically in the important adjudicative (formal) hearing and
termination trial, Spraggs has not established that the correctional facility in Illinois would have
even allowed him to participate by phone with respect to the other hearings, Spraggs does not
show how his lack of participation in some hearings ultimately altered the outcome, and it is
undisputed that Spraggs is incarcerated in Illinois for first-degree murder, attempted murder, and
carjacking, with the earliest release date being 2048. Respondent Spraggs’ presence by phone
would have changed nothing. Vasquez, supra at 48. Under these circumstances, and given that
there was no erroneous deprivation of Spraggs’ parental interests, we hold that there was no plain
error affecting his substantial rights, nor was there a due process violation.2
Respondent Mallett argues that the trial court erred in finding that DHS made reasonable
efforts to prevent removal and to rectify the conditions that led to removal. We review for clear
error a trial court’s findings on appeal. MCR 3.977(J). A finding is clearly erroneous if, although
there is evidence to support it, this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made. In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003).
Generally, DHS must make reasonable efforts to reunite a respondent and her children
through a treatment plan and referrals. In re Fried, 266 Mich App 535, 542; 702 NW2d 192
(2005); MCL 712A.18f (agency needs to inform the court regarding efforts made to prevent a
child’s removal from home and efforts made to rectify conditions that caused removal). If
reasonable efforts are not made, DHS can be prevented from establishing statutory grounds to
terminate a respondent’s parental rights. See In re Newman, 189 Mich App 61, 67-68, 70; 472
NW2d 38 (1991). Additionally, “if [DHS] fails to take into account the parents’ limitations or
disabilities and make any reasonable accommodations, then it cannot be found that reasonable
2
Spraggs’ argument concerning possible placement of the children with his mother fails because
he did not provide pertinent information regarding his mother to the Department of Human
Services (DHS) and because the argument, considering the circumstances of the case, quite
clearly had no bearing on the termination of his parental rights. We also reject his argument that
DHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite him with his children.
-4-
efforts were made to reunite the family.” In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 26; 610 NW2d 563
(2000).
We find that there is overwhelming evidence of DHS’s efforts to offer services to
respondent Mallett. She first received services in 2004, and again in 2005, before the children
were taken into the custody of the court in 2006. As stated by the trial court:
Before the children were removed, this lady was given an opportunity to
deal with Families First, which is in-home reunification program, the ARC
program, DOT, and the Work First Program—she’s been referred there 15 times,
the last time was shortly before the children were removed. Since that time, [she
has] been offered psychological evaluation, counseling, substance abuse services
through New Light, through DOT, through Saginaw Psychological Services,
parent education through Teen Parenting. There is a record here of the Early On
program even before removal.
Although respondent Mallett references her participation in parenting classes and counseling that
began in August 2007, the existence of such last-minute efforts does not alter the fact that DHS
previously provided numerous referrals for services that were either underutilized or ignored.
Respondent Mallett’s utilization of or benefit from services is a separate issue from whether
DHS made reasonable efforts to provide respondent Mallett with services. We also find no
evidence that respondent Mallett was benefiting from the services provided, thereby permitting
termination. See In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 676; 692 NW2d 708 (2005). Additionally,
because respondent Mallett never submitted to a psychological evaluation, DHS was unable to
determine what, if any, alternative services might have been necessary to help respondent Mallett
benefit from services. Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that DHS engaged in reasonable
efforts was not clearly erroneous.
On review of all the arguments presented by respondents Spraggs and Mallett, we find no
basis for reversal.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-5-
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.
