IN RE PEARSON/THORNTON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LARRY LEE PEARSON, JR.,
KA’VASEAY KE-VONTAY DE-QUAN J.
PEARSON, and ZACARIUS LE’MONTAE
DA’RELL THORNTON, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 16, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 286618
St. Clair Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-000456-NA
APRIL THORNTON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LARRY PEARSON, SR.,
Respondent.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent April Thornton appeals by right from a circuit court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
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(G); In re Archer, 277 Mich App
71, 73; 744 NW2d 1 (2007). Respondent was raising the children in a drug house when they
were originally placed into care. Respondent participated in and completed a number of
services, but she continued to allow guests to use drugs in her home while the children were
present. After respondent allegedly severed her relationship with her drug-abusing boyfriend
and demonstrated “the minimum standard of care” during visits, the children returned home.
Within a very short time, respondent dropped out of counseling, gave up her legitimate source of
income, and resumed a relationship with her former boyfriend, whose presence created a
dangerous situation for the children. Consequently, the children were removed within a month
of their return home.
-1-
Respondent had no insight into the reasons for the children’s initial or subsequent
removal and had expressed the sentiment that she was not obligated to remove them from the
presence of drug users. Contrary to what respondent argues, petitioner was not required to prove
that respondent would neglect her children for the long-term future as held in Fritts v Krugh, 354
Mich 97, 114; 92 NW2d 604 (1958), overruled on other grounds by In re Hatcher, 443 Mich
426, 444; 505 NW2d 834 (1993). That decision predates the enactment of § 19b(3), which now
governs the criteria for termination.
Further, the evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was not in the children’s best interests. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000);
MCL 712A.19b(5). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to
the children. In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
We affirm.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
