IN RE AMARIA ALICIA YVONNE YOUNGBLOOD-JACKSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AMARIA ALICIA YVONNE
YOUNGBLOOD-JACKSON, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
July 14, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 290363
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-002693-NA
JOHNNY ONTARIO YOUNGBLOOD,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Murray and Beckering, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to the
minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err when it found that the statutory grounds for termination
of respondent’s parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR
3.977(J) (stating that termination decisions are reviewed for clear error); In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent allowed the child to remain with her mother, who
was not a fit custodian. Once located, respondent did not take an active interest in taking
custody of the child until the mother’s parental rights were terminated. When granted custody of
the child, respondent was unable to provide a suitable, sanitary environment and the child had to
be returned to foster care. Respondent’s kitchen counters were covered with dishes, there were
garbage bags overflowing with food and swarming with flies, and there was spoiled food in the
refrigerator, which was not working. The home had a strong odor, there was debris on the floor,
and the child was sleeping on a mattress pad spread over pieces of a broken futon. Respondent
refused to cooperate with recommended service providers because they shared information with
petitioner, refused to grant releases for the records of service providers of his choice, and was not
compliant with several aspects of his case service plan. At the time of the permanent wardship
hearing, respondent remained unable to provide stable, suitable housing, and there was no
reasonable expectation that he would be able to provide proper care and custody within a
reasonable time considering the child’s age.
Further, the trial court did not clearly err when it found that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5) (requiring a finding that
-1-
termination is in the child’s bests interests). Respondent performed poorly when given the
opportunity to parent the child, was easily distracted during his supervised parenting time by
talking on his two cell phones, and took pictures of the child, telling her to “say hi to mom.” The
trial court determined that “mom” was the child’s mother, whose parental rights had been
terminated. Respondent refused to comply with services for reunification and displayed a
general disrespect for women during the protective proceedings, which attitude is clearly not in
the best interests of the minor female child. The child is deserving of stable, suitable living
conditions and permanency. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental
rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
-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.
