IN RE DA'GEENEA SUE MARIE LEE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DA’GEENEA SUE MARIE LEE,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 3, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281804
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-443446-NA
DANA C. LEE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Davis, P.J., and Murray and Beckering, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the order terminating her parental rights to her minor
child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. This appeal has been decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding the statutory grounds for termination
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353;
612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although provided with numerous services, respondent did little to
rectify the conditions that brought the child into care. She finished parenting classes and one
substance abuse program, but continued to use alcohol and marijuana, to miss visitations and
drug screens, and to have unstable housing and income. She did not comply with counseling and
was repeatedly jailed during the pendency of the case. She also did not complete a substance
abuse assessment and was discharged for failure to comply with several programs. The child
was in foster care for two years and respondent was given repeated chances to improve, yet
respondent’s pattern of behavior demonstrated little likelihood that she would be able to provide
proper care or custody within a reasonable time. The child would definitely continue to be at
risk with a parent who abused alcohol and marijuana, lacked suitable housing and income, and
was unavailable for long periods because she was in jail. Ample evidence supported termination
of her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).
We further find no clear error in the trial court’s ruling concerning the best interests of
the child. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 356-357. While respondent and the child were
bonded, respondent’s attendance at visitations was inconsistent, and she was unable to overcome
the problems that brought the child into care. The child needs a permanent, safe, stable home,
-1-
which respondent cannot provide. Termination of respondent’s parental rights was not clearly
contrary to the child’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Alton T. Davis
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
-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.
