IN RE BRANDIE MARIE WATSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRANDIE MARIE WATSON,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
April 24, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 279526
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-407299-NA
ANTHONY STEWART,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KIMBERLY MARIE WATSON,
Respondent.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Anthony Stewart appeals as of right from an order terminating his parental
rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (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 Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633:
593 NW2d 520 (1999). At the time of adjudication, respondent was not involved in the minor
child’s life and was approximately $40,000 in arrears in child support. When his rights were
terminated, the minor child had been a temporary ward of the court for over two years, and there
had been custody proceedings involving the minor child before that time. Respondent appeared
at only two of the hearings: the pretrial on the original petition on October 6, 2005, and the
review hearing on August 4, 2006, when the petition for termination of his rights was dismissed.
After this hearing, the minor child remained a temporary ward of the trial court, and respondent
was ordered to contact petitioner and comply with the terms of a parent agency agreement.
Respondent did contact petitioner after that by telephone, and an appointment was made but
respondent did not keep the appointment. Respondent contacted petitioner once again in
February 2007, went into the agency’s office, and petitioner reviewed the parent agency
agreement with him. A printed version of the plan was not available at that time, and respondent
-1-
was told it would be given to him at the next court hearing and was told the date and time of that
hearing. Respondent did not appear at the hearing, and petitioner did not hear from him again.
He did not appear at the termination trial. Respondent did not comply with any of the terms of
the parent agency agreement.
Respondent claims on appeal that petitioner did not give him any referrals for services to
assist him. Clearly respondent did not take any action to comply with any of the terms of the
parent agency agreement and is looking for someone else to blame. It appears from the record
that the minor child and respondent have never had a relationship and respondent never took
advantage of the visitation that he was allowed with the minor child.
The trial court also did not err in its best interests determination. MCL 712A.19b(5); In
re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent had no relationship with
the minor child and had made no effort to even visit with the minor child despite the court
allowing respondent visitation. The minor child had been in temporary care for years and was
entitled to stability.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-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.
