IN RE DE'RYAN CHRISTOPHER JONES MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DE’RYAN CHRISTOPHER
JONES, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 3, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 282655
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-432791-NA
ARLETTE JONES,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Davis, P.J., and Murray and Beckering, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to
the minor child pursuant to 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).
To terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory
grounds for termination set forth in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been met by clear and convincing
evidence. In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 632-633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). If a statutory ground for
termination is established, the trial court must terminate parental rights unless there exists clear
evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The trial court’s
decision terminating parental rights is reviewed for clear error. MCR 3.977(J); Trejo, supra at
355-357; Sours, supra at 632-633. A finding is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence
to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003); In re Miller 433 Mich 331, 337; 455
NW2d 161 (1989). Regard is to be given to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the
credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it. MCR 2.613(C); Miller, supra at 337.
There was clear and convincing evidence to terminate respondent’s parental rights
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). At the time of the adjudication, respondent had an
extensive history of abusing marijuana and alcohol. Respondent also had no residence as she
had been evicted from her apartment due to nonpayment of rent. She was unemployed and had
no means of supporting her children. By the time of the permanent custody hearing, respondent
had not demonstrated that she had stopped using drugs. Respondent admitted she had not had
-1-
independent housing in over three years. She was then living in Washington, D.C. with her
brother in his two-bedroom home. Although respondent claimed she was employed at points
during the case, she never provided verification of this employment and by the time of the
permanent custody hearing she was without a job and using Aid for Dependent Children to
support herself and her newborn daughter.
Termination of respondent’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) was also
appropriate. Respondent’s failure to completely comply with her treatment plan demonstrated
her failure and inability to provide proper care and custody. “[A] parent’s failure to comply with
the parent-agency agreement is evidence of a parent’s failure to provide proper care and custody
for the child.” In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 214; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). Respondent’s treatment
plan required her to submit random drug screens, participate in individual and family counseling,
obtain housing, and obtain employment. In 2006, respondent submitted 12 of the 52 requested
drug screens and some of the submitted drug screens were positive for marijuana. In 2007,
respondent submitted only three drug screens (in January and February) even though she was
asked to submit 42 drug screens that year. Respondent also stopped attending therapy in
September 2007. She had not obtained independent housing. She was unemployed and
therefore unable to shelter or financially support De’Ryan.
Although respondent attended parenting classes, visited her children, and attended
substance abuse treatment, she did not benefit from the services according to her caseworkers.
Respondent never demonstrated improved parenting skills or that she had stopped using drugs
despite her participation in inpatient and outpatient drug treatment. The evidence did not show
that respondent had sufficiently benefited from her treatment plan. It is not enough to merely go
through the motions; a parent must benefit from the services offered so that she can improve her
parenting skills to the point where the children would no longer be at risk in her custody. In re
Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 676; 692 NW2d 708 (2005).
Lastly, the court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights under MCL
712A.19b(3)(j). De’Ryan would have been at risk in respondent’s care given her history of
untreated marijuana use and her inability to properly care for, to house, and to support him.
According to the foster care worker, respondent’s psychiatric evaluation revealed that she had
been diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression. Respondent denied she was schizophrenic.
Respondent had not seen her psychiatrist since October and was not taking any medication
despite recommendations that she should be. Respondent’s untreated mental health issues posed
additional risk of harm to De’Ryan. There was no evidence that respondent benefited from her
treatment plan and respondent did not demonstrate improvement or a commitment to parent.
Respondent’s move to Washington, D.C. and her poor judgment in failing to submit drug screens
and fully comply with her treatment plan demonstrated a lack of commitment and parental
fitness that would subject De’Ryan to risk of harm in her care.
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err in its best interests determination. There was no
evidence in the record that it was not in De’Ryan’s best interests to terminate respondent’s
parental rights. To the contrary, the evidence established there could not have been a significant
bond between respondent and De’Ryan because the four-year-old child had been living with his
grandmother since he was just over one year old. In failing to fully comply with her treatment
plan and show that she had overcome her substance abuse issues, respondent demonstrated that
making herself available to care for and parent De’Ryan was not her priority.
-2-
Respondent argues that no evidence was presented showing that De’Ryan would be
harmed by remaining with his maternal grandmother until respondent could fully comply with
the plan. Respondent’s argument does not show that termination of her parental rights was
contrary to De’Ryan’s best interests. It is not in De’Ryan’s best interests to bond with a parent
who is uncommitted. A best interest finding requires more than lack of harm if court jurisdiction
and relative placement were to continue. Trejo, supra, 462 Mich at 356-357. Contrary to
respondent’s contention, she was unable to parent De’Ryan because she had not demonstrated
that she was no longer using drugs and because she did not have housing or employment. “If a
parent cannot or will not meet her irreducible minimum parental responsibilities, the needs of the
child must prevail over the needs of the parent.” In re Terry 240 Mich App 14, 28; 610 NW2d
563 (2000), quoting In re AP, 728 A2d 375, 379 (Pa Super, 1999).
Affirmed.
/s/ Alton T. Davis
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
-3-
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.
