IN RE WISEMAN/BEACHEM MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ELAINA WISEMAN and
HAROLD RAY BEACHEM, JR., Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
September 11, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 282293
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-419596-NA
TAMMY RENEE WISEMAN-BEACHEM,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Bandstra and Donofrio, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the order terminating her parental rights to the minor
children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), and (l). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that at least one statutory ground for
termination was established by clear and convincing evidence or in its best interests
determination. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353, 355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Sours, 459
Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999).
Although respondent’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g),
(i), and (l), she challenges only the trial court’s finding regarding subsection (g) on appeal.
Because only statutory ground need be proven to terminate parental rights, In re Powers, 244
Mich App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472 (2000), respondent has conceded the establishment of
statutory grounds for termination. Moreover, the trial court did not clearly err relying on
subsection (g) as a basis for terminating respondent’s parental rights. Respondent contends that
petitioner did not provide her with any services regarding the minor child Elaina. Because
petitioner requested termination of respondent’s rights to Elaina in the initial petition that
concerned this child, there was no need to develop and consider a case service plan to reunite the
family. MCR 3.977(E); MCL 712A.19b(4). In addition, evidence revealed that respondent was
not able to provide the minor children with proper care and custody. Respondent’s parental
rights to two other children were terminated in a prior proceeding. An issue in that case was
respondent’s substance abuse, and she was ordered to attend substance abuse treatment.
Testimony revealed that the minor child Harold had a positive screen for opiates at his birth, and
Elaina was born with narcotics in her system. Respondent’s failure to benefit from past services,
-1-
and the fact that she exposed two of her children to harmful substances during her pregnancies,
support the trial court’s finding that there was no reasonable expectation that she would be able
to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages.
MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).
Furthermore, termination of respondent’s parental rights was not clearly against the best
interests of these children. MCL 712A.19b(5). We acknowledge that respondent loves her
children and wanted them returned to her care. We also acknowledge that she was in a treatment
program. However, these children needed a permanent, stable, and safe environment in which to
live, and testimony revealed that respondent could not provide such an environment for her
children. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in terminating respondent’s parental rights
to the minor children.
We affirm.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-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.
