IN RE JAHREAM CUNLIFFE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DYNIYA LYNN CUNLIFFE,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 10, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281455
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-052085-NA
SARAH CUNLIFFE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARK MELTON,
Respondent.
In the Matter of JAHREAM CUNLIFFE, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281456
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-051386-NA
SARAH CUNLIFFE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARK MELTON,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Cavanagh and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent Sarah Cunliffe appeals by right the family
court’s order terminating her parental rights to Dyniya Cunliffe under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i)
and (g), and to Jahream Cunliffe under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We affirm.
The family court did not clearly err by finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although provided with numerous services, respondent did
little to rectify the conditions that brought the children into care. She finished one parenting
class and completed a substance abuse program with excellent marks, but she continued to use
cocaine and to become involved in violent encounters. She lied about the children’s father,
continued to engage in prostitution, and lived at numerous different addresses in addition to
motels and cars. Respondent failed to attend AA/NA regularly and did not regularly attend
counseling. She also used cocaine while pregnant. Ample evidence supported the termination of
her parental rights to the minor children. See In re Conley, 216 Mich App 41, 43-44; 549 NW2d
353 (1996).
Nor did the family court err by finding that termination was not clearly contrary to the
children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 356-357. The evidence did not
show a strong bond between respondent and either child. Respondent attended visitations only
sporadically and was unable to overcome the problems that brought the children into care. The
children were in need of a permanent, safe, and stable home, which respondent could not
provide.
Affirmed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
