IN RE SCHOONOVER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRYAN SCHOONOVER and
BRANDEN SCHOONOVER, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 24, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 291260
Jackson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-005709-NA
SHARON SHARPE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LEONARD SCHOONOVER,
Respondent.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Murphy, C.J., and Zahra, J.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Sharon Sharpe appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(g) was established by clear and
convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). The
children were removed from respondent’s home because of educational neglect, homelessness,
and respondent’s lack of financial stability. It was later revealed that respondent had untreated
mental health issues that affected her ability to parent. Respondent obtained a one-bedroom
apartment, intermittent employment, and participated in services, but failed to benefit from them.
She denied that she had mental health issues or any need for therapy, and respondent blamed her
children for the circumstances that led to their removal. Respondent’s therapist testified that
respondent was incapable of parenting her children. Considering respondent’s failure to accept
responsibility for the issues that led to the children’s removal, her continued lack of stability, her
unwillingness to treat or even acknowledge her mental illness, and considering the record as a
whole, there was sufficient evidence establishing a failure to provide proper care and custody for
-1-
the children with no reasonable expectation that respondent would be able to properly parent the
children within a reasonable time.
Respondent’s argument that the trial court relied on inadmissible hearsay statements
made by the children to a caseworker and therapist does not warrant reversal. The trial court
acknowledged the existence of some new allegations and circumstances upon which it could
only consider legally admissible evidence relative to addressing the statutory ground for
termination. The court then indicated that consideration of any genuine hearsay would be
limited to its ruling on the children’s best interests. See In re CR, 250 Mich App 185, 206-207;
646 NW2d 506 (2002) (“Some of the hearsay created an appropriate evidentiary foundation for
the family court to consider in the context of its best interests determination, after finding clear
and convincing, legally admissible evidence to terminate . . . parental rights.”); MCR
3.977(F)(1). Even assuming that the court contemplated the alleged hearsay, and that it actually
was hearsay under MRE 801, relative to new allegations in ruling that § 19b(3)(g) was satisfied,
there was more than enough untainted evidence to support termination under § 19b(3)(g). Also,
we reject respondent’s argument that the parent-agency agreement was inadequate in addressing
her problems, thereby rendering the termination order improper. It was respondent’s inability to
benefit from the agreement and to acknowledge and adequately address her problems that led to
termination, not any inadequacies in the agreement itself.
Also, considering respondent’s lack of progress, the length of time the children had been
in placement, that the children were not bonded to respondent and did not want to be reunited
with her, and the children’s need for stability and permanency in order to meet their physical,
emotional, and educational needs and to facilitate their growth and development, 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); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407
(2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ William B. Murphy
/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.