IN RE MACARTHUR MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CHAYANNE NICOLE
MACARTHUR and CHRISTOPHER ROY
MACARTHUR, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 19, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281032
St. Clair Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-000248-NA
ON RECONSIDERATION
ANGELIQUE HANKINSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CLIFFORD MACARTHUR,
Respondent.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Hankinson appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination had
been proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re Archer, 277 Mich App 71, 73; 744 NW2d
1 (2007). Respondent failed to provide proper care or custody for her children in part by
routinely leaving them with others without providing for their financial support. In particular,
she left her children with her stepfather, David Gapinski. Gapinski had a history with Children’s
Protective Services, and had been substantiated multiple times for physical and sexual abuse. As
a result of that abuse, respondent and her siblings had been temporary court wards for five years.
It was due to that record that Gapinski’s request for guardianship over respondent’s children had
been denied. Nevertheless, respondent remained convinced that Gapinski did not present a risk
of harm to the children, and had previously stated that she would leave the children with him
again. Although respondent testified during the termination hearing that she would not allow the
children to stay with Gapinski, the court did not believe that testimony, and there was evidence
-1-
that respondent had allowed the children to visit with him. Given that the issue of child safety
was never resolved despite respondent’s participation in services for a year, it was not likely that
respondent would be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time. Further,
because respondent refused to recognize the risk of harm that Gapinski presented, wanted to
maintain his relationship with the children, and had stated that she would leave the children with
him again, it was likely that the children would be harmed if returned to respondent’s custody.
Further, the trial court’s findings regarding the children’s best interests are not clearly
erroneous. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The
evidence showed that the children were subjected to unstable living conditions and were often
left in the care of others. Even assuming that they had developed some bond with respondent
through regular visitation, the evidence showed that they did not do well in respondent’s care.
They were not supervised properly, and were exposed to domestic violence between the parents
as well as inappropriate sexual activity between others. Both children were abnormally
aggressive. The older child had other problems that necessitated counseling, and the problems
only subsided after visitation ceased. In fact, the child expressed a desire to “forget about” her
parents. The evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
not in the children’s best interests. In re Trejo, supra at 354.
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.
