IN RE JEREMIAH SINCERE STANLEY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JEREMIAH SINCERE STANLEY,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
September 10, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 290657
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-717037-NA
TYESHA HELENE COLE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JERMAINE EDWARD STANLEY,
Respondent.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Talbot and Stephens, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Tyesha Cole appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) [failure to alleviate the
conditions that led to the adjudication], (g) [failure to provide proper care and custody], and (j)
[likelihood of harm to child if returned to parent’s custody]. We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The conditions that led to the child’s adjudication were
respondent’s mental health and substance abuse issues, financial instability, and failure to
maintain a home. Respondent minimally and inconsistently participated in services, and failed to
follow though with critical programs. Respondent also failed to benefit from the services in
which she did participate. Because of respondent’s untreated mental illness, her continued lack
of stability, and failure to address or accept responsibility for the issues that led to the child’s
removal, there was no reasonable expectation that respondent would be able to properly parent
the child within a reasonable period of time, and a distinct likelihood existed that the child would
be harmed if placed in respondent’s custody.
-1-
Further, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent failed to make progress in addressing the issues
that brought the child into care, and the child, who had never been in respondent’s custody, was
in need of stability and permanency in order to meet his special needs and to facilitate his
continued growth and development. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s
parental rights to the child.
On appeal, respondent further contends that termination of her parental rights was both
premature and fundamentally unfair. We note that respondent was involved with the DHS for a
period of over two years and that numerous opportunities existed for respondent to comply with
her parent-agency agreement, but failed to do so. Respondent asserts that the number of
prosecutors and DHS workers assigned to her case resulted in confusion and inconsistency.
However, respondent does not contend that the services rendered or offered were not proper and
fails to identify any legal basis or factual support for her assertion that the number of workers
assigned was so detrimental that it precluded or substantially interfered with her ability to
participate in the proffered services.1 In effect, respondent fails to acknowledge her own
responsibility for her inconsistent participation in the various services provided and her lack of
overall or demonstrable progress. Based on our determination that the trial court did not err in
finding the existence of statutory grounds for the termination of respondent’s parental rights and
that the termination of these rights was in the child’s best interests, respondent’s claims that the
termination was premature and fundamentally unfair cannot be supported.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
1
This Court will not search for authority to sustain or reject a party's position. Spires v
Bergman, 276 Mich App 432, 444; 741 NW2d 523 (2007).
-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.
