IN RE KYLIE RENEE WARRICK MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KYLIE RENEE WARRICK,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 25, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 285004
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 90-282761-NA
ETHEL MC NEIL,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Sawyer and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant, Ethel McNeil, appeals as of right from the trial court order
terminating her parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (j), and (l).
We affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not err when it concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence
to support termination of respondent’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (j), and
(l). MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The
evidence conclusively established that respondent had abused crack cocaine for nearly two
decades. Her history with protective services dated back to 1990. Prior to these proceedings,
respondent’s parental rights to three other children had been terminated.1 Several of her six
children were born with cocaine in their systems. At the time of Kylie’s birth, both respondent
and the baby tested positive for cocaine. Kylie was actually addicted to cocaine in utero.
Respondent had participated in more treatment programs than she could remember. However,
she failed to benefit from any of the services offered. Indeed, during her pregnancy with Kylie,
respondent participated in a one-month inpatient substance abuse program. Despite this
1
This Court affirmed the orders terminating respondent’s parental rights to these three children
in In re McNeil, unpublished memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued 9/14/04
(Docket No. 253780), and In re McNeil, unpublished memorandum opinion of the Court of
Appeals, issued 10/18/05 (Docket No. 262014).
-1-
treatment, and regardless of the danger to the fetus, respondent admitted that she relapsed within
weeks of her discharge from treatment. Clearly, respondent’s long-term addiction and her failure
to invest in the treatment evidenced a lack of motivation to change. In addition to the substance
abuse issue, respondent had not planned for her newborn child, she lacked suitable housing, and
she had no legal source of income. Based upon this evidence, the trial court did not clearly err
when it terminated respondent’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (j), and (l).
Further, there was no evidence that despite statutory grounds for termination, termination
of parental rights would not be in Kylie’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at
356-357.2 Because of respondent’s continued substance abuse issues, Kylie would be at risk if
returned to respondent’s care. Kylie’s placement with her father while respondent participated in
a treatment plan was not an acceptable alternative as the father, although not included in the
petition, was not suitable for placement. Further, termination was not premature, as respondent
had been given many years to establish a drug-free lifestyle. Allowing respondent additional
time to participate in services simply was not in the child’s best interests. Kylie deserved
stability that respondent could not provide.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
2
Pursuant to an amendment of MCL 712A.19b(5) by the Legislature in 2008 PA 199, a trial
court must now find, in addition to a statutory ground for termination, “that termination of
parental rights is in the child’s best interests.” This amendment was made effective July 11,
2008, which is after the date of termination in the case at bar.
-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.
