IN RE ELIJAH HOLMES MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ELIJAH HOLMES, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
August 21, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 284382
Muskegon Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-036692-NA
CHERIE PROHASKA,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Jansen and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals by right the family court order terminating her parental rights to the
minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (m). We affirm. This appeal has been
decided without oral argument. MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent concedes that the family court properly found a statutory basis for
termination. Her sole argument on appeal is that termination was contrary to the child’s best
interests. We disagree.
The child’s sibling came into care at a very young age because his father, Daniel Holmes,
broke his arm. In addition to the broken arm, a medical examination disclosed multiple rib
fractures, some of which were healing, and other bruises and abrasions. Respondent denied any
knowledge of abuse and claimed throughout these proceedings not to have noticed any signs of
injury on the minor child’s sibling. After being informed that Holmes had broken the sibling’s
arm, respondent remained with Holmes and they immediately began trying to conceive another
child. Respondent did nothing to prepare herself for becoming a parent to the child at issue in
this case, Elijah, because she did not believe that she required any assistance. She began seeking
services only to forestall termination of her parental rights. She could not explain what she
hoped to achieve by her participation in these child protective proceedings, apart from severing
her relationship with Holmes, who was already incarcerated. While there was evidence that
respondent might learn to become a suitable caretaker if she participated in services for an
appreciable period of time, her psychological evaluation indicated that her prognosis for
meaningful improvement was poor. More significantly, the child was not bonded with
respondent and respondent expressed little or no love and affection for her son. Under the
circumstances, the evidence did not show that termination was clearly contrary to the child’s best
-1-
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The
family court did not err by terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child. Id. at 356-357.
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.
