IN RE BRADY/NAYBACK-BRADY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ODESSIA BLANE BRADY,
NEVAEH NAYBACK-BRADY, and
SAVANNAH BRADY, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 21, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 288983
Chippewa Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-013583-NA
SUZZANNA BRADY,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Hoekstra and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court orders terminating her parental rights to the
minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j) and, with regard to Odessia and Nevaeh,
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). 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 the statutory grounds proven by clear and
convincing evidence. In re Trejo, Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re
Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); MCR 3.977(J). Respondent
participated in all services in her parent agency agreement that were recommended by DHS and
ordered by the court, which is evidence of an ability to provide proper care and custody. In re
JK, 468 Mich 202, 214; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). However, the trial court found that respondent
failed to benefit from parenting classes and counseling to help her learn better parent-child
interactions, and our review of the record establishes that this finding was not clearly erroneous.
JK, supra at 209-210; In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 676-677; 692 NW2d 708 (2005).
After the court took jurisdiction, respondent became pregnant with a second child
(Savannah) by Kory Schnake, despite a court order and an agreement with Children’s Protective
Services (CPS) not to allow Schnake near her children because of a 2006 child abuse conviction.
Respondent herself had five substantiated CPS referrals, including one for a child who died in
her crib upstairs while respondent and Schnake were drinking downstairs. When pregnant with
Savannah, respondent failed to obtain prenatal care and hid the pregnancy from DHS. The
primary barrier to reunification was respondent’s lack of parenting capacity, not DHS’s or the
-1-
former caseworker’s lack of oversight. Respondent was provided parenting classes, plus
counseling by Dr. Robert Devers specifically aimed at improving her parenting skills. Although
this counseling lasted only a few months, part of the delay was attributable to respondent.
Further, Dr. Devers opined that extended counseling would not have enabled respondent to be
able, without constant help, to provide proper care for the children. Dr. Devers, evaluating
psychologist Dr. Richard Shaul, and DHS caseworker Sheri Royer did not see respondent as
possessing the skills and resources to adequately anticipate and provide for her children’s needs
and keep them safe.
We also find no clear error in the trial court’s determination that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra
at 356-357. Respondent had problems nurturing her children and usually did not display
affection at visitations. Her failure to benefit from services and to take responsibility for the
conditions leading to removal meant that the children would continue to be at risk in her care.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-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.
