IN RE KANIYAH RICA SPILLER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KANIYAH RICA SPILLER,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
October 15, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 290648
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-471100-NA
DIAMOND ACUTE PALMER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANTHONY LAMONT MORRIS,
Respondent.
Before: Saad, C.J., and O’Connell and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Diamond Palmer appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating
her parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). 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 Trejo Minors, 462
Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Petitioner made reasonable efforts to reunite
respondent with her child, but respondent was not receptive to petitioner’s many offers of
assistance. Respondent waited almost a year, approximately when the permanent custody
petition was filed, before she began to participate in services. Respondent’s delay in
participating in services and her failure to substantially complete the requirements of her parentagency agreement were evidence of her failure to provide proper care and custody. In re JK, 468
Mich 202, 214; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). In addition, considering the many issues affecting
respondent’s parental fitness, as well as her own personal issues, there was no reasonable
likelihood that the conditions that led to the adjudication would be rectified or any reasonable
expectation that respondent would be in a position to provide proper care and custody within a
-1-
reasonable time, and it was reasonably likely that the child would be harmed if returned to
respondent’s home.
Further, considering that respondent could not reasonably be expected to meet the child’s
special needs, the trauma that the child experienced after visits with respondent, and the evidence
that there was no parental bond between respondent and child, 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 Minors, supra at 356-357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
