IN RE ISAIAH HUGHES MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ISAIAH HUGHES, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
September 18, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 283605
Muskegon Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-032453-NA
RUBY HUGHES,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ALKAWAN ERVIN,
Respondent.
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Zahra and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Ruby Hughes appeals as of right following an order that terminated her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly 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 child originally came into care in November 2003 because of
respondent’s substance abuse. Respondent was compliant with her parent-agency agreement and
the child was returned to her care in July 2005. A mere four months later in November 2005, the
child again became a temporary ward. From November 2005 until October 2006, respondent did
little to comply with her parent-agency agreement. Only after the termination petition was filed
in October 2006 did she attend an inpatient drug treatment center, complete parenting classes,
and secure Section 8 housing. This significant progress resulted in the withdrawal of the
termination petition. Unfortunately, respondent again relapsed in July 2007, leading to the
termination of her parental rights to the child.
Respondent argues on appeal that DHS did not offer enough services to address her
substance abuse. However, even after a positive hair follicle test in August 2007, she adamantly
denied that drug use was an issue and, instead, argued the validity of the test. It was only after
-1-
an October 10, 2007, positive screen that respondent admitted to the relapse. She had already
attended Turning Point’s inpatient program twice. The worker testified that she did not know of
a more intensive program to offer respondent. Without being able to combat her addiction,
respondent was in no position to parent the child and he could not be returned to her care.
Having found the foregoing statutory grounds for termination established by clear and
convincing evidence, the trial court was obligated to terminate respondent’s parental rights
unless it appeared, on the whole record, that termination was clearly contrary to the child’s best
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The
child and respondent shared a bond and did well together during supervised visitation. There
were never any allegations that respondent was improper or had anything but the child’s best
interests at heart. Still, the fact remained that the child had spent over half of his life in the foster
care system and was entitled to permanence and stability.
Affirmed.
/s/ Bill Schuette
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
