IN RE MCCARRICK/HICKS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JAZMIN RAE McCARRICK,
KAYLEE McCARRICK, ALIANNA KRYSTIN
McCARRICK, and ANGELIQUE COLE HICKS,
Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
July 24, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 283039
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-002111-NA
AVIS MAE McCARRICK,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Saad, C.J., and Fort Hood and Borrello, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the order terminating her parental rights to the minor
children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Respondent argues that she was not given adequate time to demonstrate her ability to
properly parent her children. Respondent’s children had been removed from her care previously
under similar circumstances involving substance abuse and homelessness or inadequate housing.
Respondent failed to substantially address these issues. Her progress in outpatient substance
abuse treatment during this proceeding was minimal. Testimony revealed that respondent was
attending group and individual session in the months immediately before the termination
hearing, and her substance abuse therapist testified that respondent seemed to grasp the
techniques and procedures discussed during sessions and opined that respondent would be able
to implement them in the future. However, the therapist had not observed respondent outside of
group sessions. Respondent testified that she had been attending AA and NA meetings, but she
provided no verification of her attendance to her worker. She did not obtain housing until the
weeks before the termination trial, when she signed a lease on a two-bedroom apartment.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that statutory grounds for termination had
been established by clear and convincing evidence or in its best interests determination. In re
Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353, 355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); MCR 3.977(J). The evidence established
that respondent did not substantially comply with her treatment plan. Her last-minute efforts at
addressing her housing situation and her substance abuse problem were not sufficient to
-1-
demonstrate that she could properly care for the children. In addition, respondent’s failure to
fully comply with her treatment plan during the pendency of this case indicated that she would
not likely make a meaningful effort toward reunification even if she were given additional time
to comply.
Furthermore, the evidence did not establish that the children’s best interests precluded
termination of respondent’s parental rights. MCL 712A.19b(5). The foster care worker noted
that this was the second removal of the children, and it had been devastating for them. Opining
that respondent’s rights should be terminated, the worker noted that respondent had been
unwilling or unable to benefit from the services provided to her and did not make efforts to
address her substance abuse until the termination of her parental rights was imminent. The
worker believed that the children would be placed at risk if returned to respondent’s care.
Respondent’s 15-year-old daughter also expressed concern about being returned to respondent’s
care, testifying that she believed that it would not be safe for her and her sisters to live with
respondent. Thus, the court did not clearly err in terminating respondent’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
-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.
