IN RE SIMONDS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of REAVE XAVIER SIMONDS and
PHOENIX SIMONDS, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 16, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 289606
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 08-001970-NA
TAWNYA SIMONDS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOSHUA SIMONDS,1
Respondent.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Bandstra and Donofrio, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent, Tawnya Simonds, appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating
her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood based on the capacity of
the parent that the children will be harmed if returned to the parent) and (m) (parent’s rights to
another child were voluntarily terminated following the initiation of proceedings). Because the
trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established the statutory grounds for
termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the
best interests of the children, we affirm.
The trial court’s findings of fact may not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous,
and this Court shall give regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to judge the credibility of
witnesses who appeared before it. MCR 2.613(C).
1
The trial court also terminated respondent father’s parental rights. He is not participating in
this appeal.
-1-
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds were established by
clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). It was established that respondent did not provide for the medical needs of
her children. Reave, who received social security benefits because of a heart issue, was not
given his medication, and respondent did not take Phoenix to a follow-up appointment following
her hospitalization, despite being provided bus passes. Further, there was testimony that
respondent was inattentive to her children, did not provide proper supervision, and said several
times that she did not want her children. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in finding
that there was a reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed if returned to
respondent’s home. Finally, there was no dispute that petitioner established that respondent
voluntarily released her parental rights to her other children notwithstanding nearly two years of
services after neglect proceedings were instituted in New Hampshire.
The trial court also did not clearly err in determining that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MCR 3.977(J).
Respondent argues that the court should have offered her services, including a psychological
evaluation, before terminating her parental rights. However, respondent was previously, and
recently, provided with reunification services in New Hampshire and failed to benefit from the
services. She testified that she wanted her children to be cared for by their father and that she
wanted to remain a part of their lives. Both of petitioner’s witnesses testified that respondent
made statements that she did not want the children. Although there was a bond between
respondent and her children, she could not care for them and did not want to care for them.
MCL 712A.19b(4) allows the trial court to terminate parental rights at the initial disposition
hearing, if the petitioner so requests, as petitioner did here. Of course, the trial court could have
found that termination was not in the children’s best interests and ordered respondent to
complete services, including a psychological evaluation, but the court did not clearly err in
finding that termination was in the children’s best interests at the initial disposition hearing.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-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.
