IN RE PARKER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JOHNATHAN PARKER and
BRADLEY PARKER, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
August 27, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 290592
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2007-000139-NA
ROBERT PARKER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CORY PARKER, a/k/a CORY WENDZEL,
Respondent.
Before: M. J. Kelly, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Shapiro, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Robert Parker appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
It is our view that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds
for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. See MCR 3.977(J); In re
Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent had serious mental health issues
and lacked any significant parenting skills. The children’s counselor recommended against
visitation with respondent, due to the nature of the children’s behavior problems, until
respondent began counseling, showed that he was benefiting from it, and was “willing and able
to take responsibility for his actions . . . .” Respondent, however, never earned visitation because
his attendance at counseling was sporadic and he failed to make significant progress. As of his
last therapy session, his therapist reported that “he could not recommend the children going to
Mr. Parker . . . .” In addition, respondent lacked suitable housing and a source of income.
Contrary to respondent’s argument on appeal, petitioner was not required to prove that
respondent would neglect his 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
-1-
426, 444; 505 NW2d 834 (1993). That case predates the enactment of MCL 712A.19b(3), which
now sets forth the criteria for termination of parental rights.
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). Accordingly, we
conclude that the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
-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.
