IN RE CONNER E BECKETT MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CONNER E. BECKETT, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 6, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 282445
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-722813-NA
PETER JOSEPH BECKETT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHARLENE LEONE MEADE,
Respondent.
Before: White, P.J., and Hoekstra and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Peter Joseph Beckett appeals as of right from the trial court’s order
terminating his parental rights to his minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).
We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument under MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that clear and convincing evidence
established the statutory grounds for termination of respondent’s parental rights. MCR 3.977(G),
(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
The conditions that caused the child to come into care included neglect, substance abuse,
and domestic violence. Respondent did not substantially comply with the services offered. He
did not consistently and honestly submit drug screens, he failed to participate fully in a
counseling program, and he did not complete parenting classes. Because respondent did not
participate in the services offered, or alternatively benefit from the services he did participate in,
the trial court did not err when it concluded that respondent had yet to adequately address his
substance abuse and anger management issues. Further, at the time of termination, respondent
did not have suitable housing and had not provided verification of stable employment. Indeed, at
the time of the hearing, respondent was jailed awaiting sentencing. This was a recurring theme
as respondent had been in and out of jail during the entire case. At the time of termination,
-1-
Conner had been in care for nearly 18 months yet the foster care worker described respondent as
still being at “square one.” Because respondent lacked the capacity to provide a safe, caring, and
nurturing environment for his child, and would not be able to do so within a reasonable time, the
trial court did not err when it terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).
Additionally, there was no evidence that, despite statutory grounds for termination,
termination of parental rights would not be in Conner’s best interests. Any bond that existed
between respondent and his son was tenuous. Moreover, the evidence clearly demonstrated that
the child would be at risk of injury if returned to respondent’s care. Respondent was simply in
no better position to parent his child than when Conner came into care. Conner was only two
years old. He deserved to have the benefit of a safe, stable, and nurturing environment to
facilitate his continued growth and development.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.