IN RE HOLCOMB MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MERCEDIE HOLCOMB and
EMERSON HOLCOMB, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
October 20, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 291001
Clinton Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-020200-NA
ANGEL HOLCOMB,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Davis, P.J., and Whitbeck and Shapiro, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights
to the minor children 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 Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The conditions that led to the children’s adjudication were
respondent’s substance abuse, lack of stable and suitable housing, lack of financial support to
properly care for the children, and failure to properly parent. Respondent also had untreated
mental health issues. Respondent minimally participated in services and failed to benefit from
the services that she did participate in. In addition, she continued to test positive for cocaine and
marijuana, including on the day of the termination hearing, and never obtained suitable housing
or employment.
Contrary to what respondent argues, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that
reasonable efforts were made to reunify the family and avoid termination of parental rights. See
In re LE, 278 Mich App 1, 18; 747 NW2d 883 (2008); In re Fried, 266 Mich App 535, 542-543;
702 NW2d 192 (2005). The evidence showed that petitioner made numerous referrals for
services, including therapy, psychological and psychiatric evaluations, drug screens, visitation,
and other programs that could have assisted respondent in securing suitable housing and
employment. Respondent did not substantially comply with any service or program, and was
terminated from most for noncompliance.
-1-
Finally, considering that respondent failed to make any progress in addressing the issues
that brought the children into care, and the evidence that the children were not bonded with
respondent and were traumatized by their experiences while in her care, the trial court did not
clearly err in finding that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Alton T. Davis
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/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.
