IN RE SAWYER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ELIZABETH J. SAWYER and
THOMAS B. SAWYER, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
August 21, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 284195
Grand Traverse Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-001864-NA
CONNIE L. SAWYER,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Jansen and Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from an order terminating her parental rights to the minor
children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Respondent and her ex-husband had four children together. Respondent moved to
Hawaii in 1999 and did not return to Michigan until 2004. After returning to the Detroit area,
she had only sporadic visitation with the children, who resided in northern Michigan with their
father and stepmother. The mother eventually obtained custody of the couple’s son Andrew. In
2006, their oldest child, Kellie, alleged that she was sexually abused while she was living with
her father. An investigation substantiated that claim and also revealed that the father had been
sexually abusing Elizabeth. He was removed from the home, criminally prosecuted and his
parental rights were terminated. In the meantime, the two youngest children, Elizabeth and
Thomas, continued to live with their stepmother.
Respondent argues that her parental rights were terminated simply because the children
preferred to stay with their stepmother. She claims that too much weight was given to their
preferences and that there was no statutory basis for termination. We disagree. The trial court
did not err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and
convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
The court also did not err in its determination that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was not clearly contrary to the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
-1-
The caseworker testified regarding respondent’s noncompliance with the parent-agency
agreement. Respondent failed to obtain suitable and independent housing, failed to properly
verify her employment status, and failed to attend individual counseling. More importantly, she
failed to maintain contact with the children, attending only five of 12 scheduled visits and never
taking advantage of the fact that she could have had weekly visitation. Respondent claimed that
money and transportation were issues that kept her from traveling to northern Michigan;
however, workers offered respondent gas money and even offered to have her relocated to the
area, but she refused.
Additionally, the evidence clearly demonstrated that the trial court’s decision was not
simply based on the preferences of the two minor children but was based on the opinions of the
experts who testified regarding respondent’s inability to care for the children. The children
could not trust their mother, who had already left them once, and they had no relationship to
speak of with her. The children had been through such trauma at the loss of their father and his
victimization of Elizabeth that they needed to be able to trust in their caregiver. Respondent’s
own psychological problems, which remained totally unaddressed in the year the children were
temporary wards, would not allow her to identify with or meet their special needs. The children
were entitled to permanence and stability, which respondent could not provide.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
