IN RE HICKS/ADDISON/BROOKS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of A.R.H, E.A.J.A, J.C.J.A., and
V.Z.J.B., Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 17, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 291250
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-703445-NA
JENNIFER ALEIGHA BROOKS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Murray and M.J. Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
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)(b)(ii), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Respondent’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court clearly erred in determining
that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interests. We disagree.
Once a statutory ground for termination is established, the trial court shall order
termination of parental rights if termination is in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5);
see also In re Rood, 483 Mich 73, 102 n 43; 763 NW2d 587 (2009). This Court reviews the trial
court’s best interests decision for clear error. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d
407 (2000).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental
rights was in the children’s best interests. Despite respondent’s claims to the contrary, the
overwhelming evidence indicates that Anthony Hicks physically abused the children.
Respondent’s daughter testified that her brother suffered bruises on his buttocks, arms, and legs
because Hicks beat him with his hands and a belt. Although respondent’s mother, Patricia
Brooks, claimed that she did not recall reporting the abuse to Child Protective Services, Chris
DeBoer testified that he received a referral from Brooks in April 2006 indicating that
respondent’s son had bruises on his buttocks, that Hicks was violent, and that Brooks feared for
the safety of respondent and the children. Contrary to respondent’s contention that Hicks never
physically abused the children, respondent’s daughter testified that respondent told Hicks to stop
hitting her son with a belt on one occasion and directed him to stop putting his hands on all of
-1-
her children. Thus, the record shows that respondent was aware of the physical abuse and
allowed it to occur for a period of time.
The record does not support respondent’s claim that Hicks was no longer violent after she
rekindled her relationship with him and that no domestic violence occurred after she allowed him
back into her life. The month before the sexual assault occurred, Hicks choked respondent’s
daughter while she was standing against a wall in respondent’s presence. Following the incident,
respondent asked her daughter if she wanted to go to Brooks’s home and drove her there. Thus,
the record supports the child’s testimony that respondent was unable to protect the children from
Hicks and contradicts respondent’s claim that Hicks was not physically abusive.
Further, respondent continued to associate with Hicks after he sexually assaulted one of
her children, “X.” Respondent admitted that she continued to have contact with Hicks and sent
him text messages in the months following the assault. “X” saw Hicks’s car in the driveway of
the home and others told her that they had seen respondent and Hicks together. “X” expressed
anger and resentment toward respondent for allowing Hicks back into the home after the assault
and directing the children not to tell others that Hicks was back in the home. The record fails to
support respondent’s claim that she did not coach the children to deny that Hicks resided with the
family. Although respondent maintained that she was in a car with Hicks when she was arrested
in April 2008 only because he promised to give her money, her testimony and the version of the
incident that she provided during her psychological evaluation conflicted. Thus, even during
trial, respondent minimized her continued association with Hicks after the sexual assault and
failed to fully accept responsibility for her poor choices. Respondent’s failure to acknowledge
and appreciate the impact of her relationship with Hicks on the children supports the trial court’s
determination that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-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.
