IN RE HOPES/CHARLESTON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KENYATTE HOPES and NIAH
CHARLESTON, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
April 17, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 278614
Jackson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-003553-NA
MONIQUE CARSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RASHAD CHARLESTON,
Respondent.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Murphy and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Monique Carson appeals as of right the order terminating her parental rights
to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds had been
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The children came into care after one of the children, four
months old at the time, had her skull fractured by her father during a domestic dispute with
respondent. The petition was authorized after respondent made certain admissions, including
that she had been involved in past physical altercations with the father of one of the children and
had been involved in an altercation with the other child’s father, which may have resulted in the
youngest child being struck. Over the course of the next two and one-half years, respondent
suffered problems with housing, employment, and drug use. She was also incarcerated twice,1
1
During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent pled guilty to home invasion, unlawfully
driving away an automobile, and possession of marijuana.
-1-
her last visit with the children occurred in May 2006, and she became pregnant by another man
who was arrested in January 2007 for abusing her. However, by the time of the termination
hearing, respondent had not tested positive for drugs for at least six months, had maintained parttime employment for three months, and had appropriate housing in which she resided on her own
(only because her latest abusive partner was incarcerated).
This evidence showed that respondent successfully broke away from the children’s
fathers but almost immediately thereafter became embroiled with another abusive man, with
whom she was still involved a month before the termination hearing. Although she claimed to
have recently decided to permanently end the relationship, she had not yet had sufficient time or
wherewithal to put that goal into action. Indeed, after first obtaining a personal protection order
against her latest boyfriend because of abuse, she attempted to have it removed without success.
Furthermore, there was testimony that respondent failed to complete domestic violence services
on two occasions, failed to stay in counseling with her second therapist, and stopped taking
psychiatric medications prescribed to her. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err when it
found the adjudicating condition of domestic violence had not yet been rectified. Furthermore,
given respondent’s history, there was no reasonable expectation or likelihood that respondent
would be able to break the vicious cycle of domestic violence within a reasonable time given the
children’s young ages. The presence of domestic violence in the home would place the children
at risk of injury should they be returned to her care. There was sufficient evidence to support
termination under all the grounds cited by the trial court.
Next, the trial court did not clearly err in its best interests determination. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 356-357. The children had been removed from respondent’s
care for two and one-half years and, by the time of the termination hearing, respondent had not
visited them in a year. There was evidence that one of the children suffers from posttraumatic
stress disorder caused by violence in the home and sexual abuse inflicted by one of respondent’s
past boyfriends. There was no evidence of any bond between respondent and the children, and
the children needed stability.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
