IN RE BJ JOHNNY JOHNSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BJ JOHNNY JOHNSON, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 5, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 287867
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 91-295535-NA
DAVID JOHNSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CARLA YVETTE BRUCE-JOHNSON.
Respondent.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murphy and M.J. Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent father appeals as of right the order terminating his parental rights to his
minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), and (j). We affirm.
A petitioner must establish at least one statutory ground for termination of parental rights
by clear and convincing evidence. In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). In the
present case, the trial court’s decision was based primarily on the mother’s behavior, specifically
the way she parented other children who were removed from her care, her prenatal drug use, and
her long history of substance abuse and relapses after treatment. However, respondent father had
an independent duty to protect his children. See In re CR, 250 Mich App 185, 207; 646 NW2d
506 (2002). This was not the first child he had with this mother. He voluntarily released his
rights to the first child after failing to comply with a treatment plan. Further, respondent father
clearly expressed his intent in the present proceedings to support and remain with the mother;
therefore, returning the child to his care would return the child to the mother’s care as well.
Respondent father demonstrated that he would continue supporting the mother no matter how
many times she relapsed and harmed their unborn children. Therefore, he was unlikely to be
able and willing to protect their baby from the risks of a drug-addicted mother.
The trial court did not err when it found clear and convincing evidence to terminate
respondent father’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). The child was
-1-
reasonably likely to be harmed if placed in his parents’ care, respondent father was not
reasonably likely to provide proper care and custody in a reasonable time for the same reason,
and he failed to provide proper care and custody because this was his second child with a drugaddicted mother. Because clear and convincing evidence established these two statutory
grounds, we need not address whether the trial court erred when it relied on MCL
712A.19b(3)(i). In re Huisman, 230 Mich App 372, 384-385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998). However,
we note that the trial court could also have found sufficient evidence under MCL
712A.19b(3)(m) based solely on the prior voluntarily termination.
Under the amended version of MCL 712A.19b(5), the trial court was required to find that
termination was in the child’s best interests before terminating respondent father’s parental
rights. The child needed permanence and a safe home and never had an opportunity to bond with
his biological parents. Respondent father chose to stand by the mother, despite her repeated
cocaine use, and it was unknown whether she would ever stop using permanently, because she
had relapsed after treatment several times before. The trial court did not err when it held that
termination of both respondents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-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.
