IN RE PATTERSON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ASHTON DAVID PATTERSON
and ANABELLE RAYE PATTERSON, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 18, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 286125
Monroe Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-019966-NA
JESSICA MARIE COOLEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID LEE PATTERSON,
Respondent.
In the Matter of ASHTON DAVID PATTERSON
and ANABELLE RAYE PATTERSON, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 286126
Monroe Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-019966-NA
DAVID LEE PATTERSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
-1-
and
JESSICA MARIE COOLEY
Respondent.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Jansen and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order
terminating their parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The petition for temporary custody was filed after Ashton, then two years old, suffered a
near fatal overdose of methadone that respondent mother had left in her pocket. Respondent
mother did not seek immediate medical attention for Ashton. Anabelle had also been
hospitalized for over four weeks following her birth because of prenatal exposure to methadone,
and she had only been home for four days before the children were removed from respondent
mother’s care. Respondent father was incarcerated for domestic violence against respondent
mother at the time of the removal. Due to incarceration and substance abuse treatment,
respondent parents did not substantially complete their case service plans or visit the children
during the year the case was pending.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were
established by clear and convincing evidence with regard to both respondents. MCR 3.977(J); In
re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent mother did not complete her
inpatient substance abuse treatment program. Although she was excused for medical reasons,
her therapist from the treatment program testified that respondent mother needed lengthy
inpatient treatment to maintain her sobriety. Respondent mother was incarcerated for a great
deal of the time the case was pending and prolonged her incarceration by failing to return to jail
after a medical release. She did not have housing or employment and did not complete any
aspect of the case service plan. Essentially, after her children had been in foster care for over a
year, she was starting from the beginning. The children were aged two and a half and one year
and had already spent over a year in foster care. At best, it would take respondent mother six to
12 months to be able to provide proper care and custody for them and rectify the conditions
leading to adjudication. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not clearly err in finding
that petitioner established sections (c)(i) and (g) with regard to respondent mother.
There was also no question that the conditions of adjudication continued to exist with
regard to respondent father and that he could not provide proper care and custody for the children
at the time of trial. Respondent father was incarcerated for most of the pendency of the case,
first for domestic violence against respondent mother and then for other crimes committed after
his release. At the time of trial, respondent father was in inpatient substance abuse treatment and
had 60 days until completion. He testified that he would be able to care for the children within
four months. This scenario was optimistic, however, considering respondent father’s criminal
-2-
history in the preceding four years and the substance abuse issues for which he was seeking
treatment for the first time. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that
respondent father would not be able to provide proper care and custody for the children or rectify
the conditions leading to adjudication within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages.
The trial court also did not clearly err in finding that MCL 712A.19b(j) was established
with regard to both parents. Respondent mother admitted that Ashton’s life-threatening overdose
occurred because she was neglectful and “high.” The foster care worker testified that respondent
mother became frustrated when she had to care for both children during visitation with no
assistance from another adult. Given respondent mother’s new and tenuous sobriety and her lack
of recent contact with the children, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that there was a
reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed if returned to her home. Because
respondent father had difficulty remaining out of jail, had no extensive period of sobriety outside
of jail or inpatient treatment, and his criminal history included domestic violence against
respondent mother, this Court also cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in finding that
petitioner established that there was a reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed if
returned to respondent father’s home.
The trial court also did not clearly err in its best interests determination. MCL
712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 344. There is no doubt that respondent parents’ bond with the
children was extremely limited, if it existed at all. Because of the length of time the children had
already been in foster care, the additional time needed for respondent parents to be able to care
for the children, and the likelihood of relapse by either respondent parent, the trial court did not
clearly err in finding no evidence that termination was against the children’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-3-
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.
