IN RE SIMMONS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALISSA ANN ASHLEY
SIMMONS and JOILEANNA NICOLE
SIMMONS, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 26, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 289860
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2007-000153-NA
DEANNA SIMMONS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOEL SIMMONS,
Respondent.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Hoekstra and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Deanna Simmons appeals as of right a trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We
affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) were each
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent had a serious substance abuse problem, minimal
parenting skills, and little insight. She made little effort to overcome her drug addiction, never
completed parenting classes or counseling, and rarely visited the children. At the time the
petition was filed, respondent was in jail and was not due to be released for another three
months.
Contrary to what respondent argues, petitioner was not required to prove that she 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
-1-
834 (1993). That decision predates the enactment of § 19b(3), which now governs the criteria
for termination.
Further, considering respondent’s failure to even attempt to overcome her drug addiction,
her failure to maintain a parent/child relationship through regular visitation, and her inability to
meet the children’s need for permanency and stability, termination of respondent’s parental
rights was in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). Therefore, the trial court did not
err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the children. In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
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.
