IN RE CARLIE FAY BORRE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CFB, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
April 20, 2010
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 293379
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-472381-NA
ERIC G. BORRE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JULIA ANN BORRE,
Respondent.
In the Matter of CFB, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 293381
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-472381-NA
JULIA ANN BORRE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ERIC G. BORRE,
Respondent.
Before: MARKEY, P.J., and ZAHRA and GLEICHER, JJ.
-1-
PER CURIAM.
Respondents appeal by right the trial court’s order terminating their parental rights to the
minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that at least one statutory ground for
termination was established by clear and convincing evidence, MCL 712A.19b(3), and that
termination of parental rights was in the minor child’s best interest, MCL 712A.19b(5). In re JK,
468 Mich 202, 210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003); MCR 3.977(J). There was clear and convincing
evidence that the conditions leading to adjudication—substance abuse and lack of stable
housing—continued to exist, and it was not reasonably likely they would be rectified in a
reasonable time. MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). Respondents’ substance abuse, lack of stable housing
and income, and poor judgment also made them unable to provide proper care and custody in a
reasonable time. MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). The child would likely be harmed if returned to
respondents because they moved among friends’ homes and abused substances. MCL
712A.19b(3)(j).
Although the trial court misspoke when it referenced the “almost three years” the case
had been pending, the court cited the correct year. The error was harmless. MCR 2.613.
Further, although respondents may have struggled with depression, when a parent cannot meet
minimum parental responsibilities, the child’s needs prevail. In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 28;
610 NW2d 563 (2000), citing In re AP, 728 A2d 379 (Pa, 1999).
Respondents argued that petitioner should have provided additional services to address
their depression and lack of stable income and housing. “[W]hen a child is removed from the
parents’ custody, the petitioner is required to make reasonable efforts to rectify the conditions
that caused the child’s removal by adopting a service plan.” In re Fried, 266 Mich App 535,
542; 701 NW2d 192 (2005). However, petitioner referred respondents to therapy and had no
reason to believe respondents required psychiatric treatment. Respondents did not request
psychiatric care, housing assistance, or employment assistance. Further, they did not remain in
contact with their foster care worker and did not submit required random drug screens.
Petitioner’s efforts were reasonable under the circumstances.
The trial court also did not err in its best interests determination. MCL 712A.19b(5).
Respondents visited frequently and witnesses testified that the child was attached to her parents.
This was relevant to the best interests analysis. See In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286, 301; 690
NW2d 505 (2004); In re AH, 245 Mich App 77, 89; 627 NW2d 33 (2001). However, the child’s
need for stability was also relevant. See In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 52; 480 NW2d 293
(1991). Although the maternal grandmother offered guardianship, that would not provide
complete stability. The trial court did not clearly err when it balanced the child’s interests and
held that termination of both respondents’ parental rights was in her best interests.
We affirm.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
-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.
