IN RE SERINA EILEEN JACKSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SERINA EILEEN JACKSON,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 12, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 286727
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-053594-NA
BRIAN ANTHONY JACKSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
AMALIA ELENA JACKSON,
Respondent.
In the Matter of SERINA EILEEN JACKSON,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 286728
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-053594-NA
AMALIA ELENA JACKSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BRIAN ANTHONY JACKSON,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Zahra and Shapiro, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).
We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination of
respondents’ parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J);
In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The primary conditions leading to
adjudication were inappropriate parenting in exhibiting sexual behavior in the presence of the
minor child and her half-brother and exposing both children to pornography, marital instability,
emotional and verbal domestic violence, and homelessness. These conditions contributed to the
six-year-old minor child’s sexual abuse by her half-brother and constituted failure to provide
proper care or custody. Sixteen months elapsed between the initial disposition and termination
of respondents’ parental rights.
The primary issues in this case were lack of sexual boundaries with the children and
extreme marital instability. Both issues were caused by respondents’ deep-seated personality
issues. Respondent mother received 22 months of counseling to address her dependency, lack of
assertiveness, and inability to protect the children. She had the potential to benefit and reached
the point of admitting that openly sexual behavior may be detrimental to the child, but against
the advice of the Families First worker, her therapists, and the trial court, she remained
committed to a relationship with respondent father, who made no progress.
Respondent father received nine months of mental health counseling and ten sessions of
sexual addiction counseling. However, respondent did not benefit from these services and
instead demonstrated an unwillingness to address his problems. Respondent farther maintained
he was a victim of the system. He failed to rectify the conditions of domestic violence and
marital affairs, which made respondents’ home and marriage extremely unstable.
Given respondents’ lack of benefit during the 22 months between the time services began
and the time of termination, there was no reasonable likelihood respondents would rectify the
conditions leading to adjudication and provide the minor child with proper care within a
reasonable time. A home with respondent father remained unsafe and unstable, and respondent
mother did not rectify her dependence on and commitment to respondent father. The evidence
was clear and convincing she would fail to prevent sexually inappropriate behavior in the child’s
presence and that the home would be fraught with discord and instability. It was likely the minor
child would be harmed if returned to respondents.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents’ parental rights was
clearly contrary to the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The evidence showed the minor child was strongly bonded to
respondents, their visits were positive and appropriate, and up to the time of termination the child
desired to return home. However, in light of respondent father’s lack of progress and respondent
-2-
mother’s continued commitment to a relationship with him, there was no likelihood the child
could safely return home within a reasonable time. Therefore, the trial court did not err in going
beyond the required finding that termination of parental rights was not detrimental to her, and
finding it in her best interests.
Respondent mother specifically argues petitioner did not tailor services to the specific
recommendations made in her psychological evaluation, particularly in that her therapists were
not qualified mental health therapists of the type contemplated by the evaluating psychologist.
However, these claims are unsupported by the record. The evidence showed respondent
mother’s counselors were mental health therapists of the type contemplated by the evaluating
psychologist and that respondent mother received 22 months of appropriate counseling.
Respondent mother also argues that petitioner did not recognize her desperate need for
support or provide additional services to facilitate her independence from respondent father,
particularly after her attorney was murdered by a violent husband. The evidence certainly
showed respondent mother lacked a strong support system, and the loss of an attorney who could
identify with her position in a domestically violent marriage was tragic. However, respondent
received support from the Families First worker and her counselors but, against all advice, chose
not to separate from respondent father and establish a support network separate from him.
Respondent father argues petitioner failed to provide sufficient counseling services
because the management team of the YWCA prematurely and unfairly terminated his individual
counseling and domestic violence group sessions. The evidence showed respondent father made
no progress in individual counseling from September 2006 to May 2007, choosing to view
himself as a victim instead of addressing his mental health issues. He was referred to ten
sessions with a sex addiction specialist independent of the YWCA after additional psychological
evaluation warranted it, but he continued to deny that sexual over exposure affected the child and
her half-brother because he believed his own and respondent mother’s sexual abuse as children
had not affected them. He was discharged from the domestic violence counseling group for
excessive absence, and given his expression of extreme dislike for the content of the group and
its members, petitioner did not err in declining to refer him to additional domestic violence
services.
The trial court correctly found marital counseling properly excluded from respondents’
treatment plan because domestic violence was present in their home. Respondents’ therapists
followed State of Michigan and YWCA protocol by declining to provide marital counseling until
the issue of domestic violence had been resolved. Given lack of progress in other forms of
counseling, respondents do not establish that they would have benefited more had they received
marital counseling. In re Fried, 266 Mich App 535, 543; 702 NW2d 192 (2005).
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
-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.
