IN RE ISAIAH JONES MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ISAIAH JONES, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 18, 2010
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 294293
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2009-000037-NA
HELENJEAN MARY JONES,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CARL JONES,
Respondent.
Before: Servitto, P.J., and Bandstra and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Helenjean Jones appeals by right from a trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(l). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(l) was established by clear and
convincing legally admissible evidence. MCR 3.977(E)(3); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357;
612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1, 16-17; 761 NW2d 253 (2008). The
child’s siblings became temporary court wards at birth in May 2007. Respondent was provided
with numerous services to improve her parenting skills, but was unable to do so because of her
cognitive limitations. Her parental rights to the siblings were terminated in January 2009, just
two months before Isaiah was born. Thus, termination of respondent’s parental rights to Isaiah
was appropriate under § 19b(3)(l).
Contrary to what respondent argues, the trial court was not required to find that
respondent would neglect the child for the long-term future as held in Fritts v Krugh, 354 Mich
97, 114; 92 NW2d 604 (1958), overruled on other grounds in In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 444;
505 NW2d 834 (1993). The Fritts decision predates the enactment of § 19b(3), which now sets
forth the current criteria for termination.
-1-
Finally, despite all the services that had been provided to respondent, a psychological
evaluation indicated that she still lacked any significant parenting skills or insight, and the foster
care worker testified that respondent looked like a child holding a baby for the first time when
interacting with Isaiah, and that she constantly needed assistance or assurance from others in
taking care of him. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was in Isaiah’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich at 356357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
