IN RE HINOJOSA/BREWSTER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of A.F.H., M.K.H., K. L. H., J.D. B.,
and S.N.B., Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 6, 2010
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 295457
St. Clair Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-000248-NA
CHRISTY HINOJOSA,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ERIC WALKER and ALAN GRIMSLEY,
Respondent.
Before: TALBOT, P.J., and FITZGERALD and M.J. KELLY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Christy Hinojosa appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) [failure to provide proper care
and custody] and (j) [risk of harm to children if returned to parental home].1 We affirm. This
appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
“In order to terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the
statutory grounds of MCL 712A.19b . . . has been met by clear and convincing evidence.” In re
1
On appeal, respondent also contends error regarding termination of her parental rights pursuant
to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b). We note that although the November 24, 2009, order lists this statutory
subsection as a basis for termination, this appears to be a clerical error in the order as the
petitioner did not allege or seek termination pursuant to this subsection in its petitions. Because
we find the trial court correctly terminated respondent’s parental rights under the remaining two
cited subsections, we need not address this error in the wording of the trial court’s order. In re
JK, 468 Mich 202, 210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003).
-1-
McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). The trial court must also find clear and
convincing evidence that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). This Court reviews a trial court’s factual findings in an order
terminating parental rights for clear error. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445
NW2d 161 (1989).
On March 24, 2009, a police drug task force executed a drug raid at respondent’s
residence. Respondent’s boyfriend, Antoine Brown, was the target of the raid. Respondent was
not at home at the time of the raid, but her children were present. Respondent left her 13-yearold daughter and her teenaged friends to baby-sit the three younger children. During the raid, the
police found dealers’ quantities of crack cocaine in the freezer of the refrigerator in the kitchen
and on the bathroom floor, some Vicodin pills and marijuana roaches in an ashtray, and $400
folded into $100 packs in a purse in the main floor bedroom. Brown was caught fleeing out the
back door of respondent’s residence. Deputy Michael Garvin interviewed Brown, who stated
that respondent was his girlfriend and that he stayed at her home frequently. Brown admitted
that the drugs were his and that he had been selling them out of respondent’s residence. Brown
indicated that the room where the money was found was respondent’s bedroom.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory bases for termination
had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. At the time of the raid, the children had just
recently been returned to respondent’s care upon dismissal of a previous child protection case.
The workers had warned respondent about spending time with Brown and the risk of permitting
him to spend time in the presence of her children. Respondent and Brown attempted to
downplay their relationship when speaking with the assigned caseworkers and to obscure
Brown’s identity when he was found at respondent’s residence. Despite the warnings and
concerns expressed and having been informed of Brown’s drug-related criminal history,
respondent continued to expose her children to Brown’s routine presence in the home.
Consequently, respondent subjected her children to a drug raid in their home. The evidence
established that Brown and respondent were in a dating relationship for a year before the raid and
that he was at respondent’s home on a daily basis, frequently spent the night, and maintained
items of clothing at that location. Respondent acknowledged that Brown divided his time
between her house, his grandmother’s, and his sister’s.
At the termination hearing, respondent testified that she believed Brown when he told her
that he never brought or used drugs at her house until the day of the drug raid. Yet, Garvin
testified that the drug task force had purchased drugs from Brown at respondent’s residence
before the raid occurred. Brown told Garvin that he was dealing the drugs out of respondent’s
home. Brown also admitted to smoking marijuana in respondent’s living room while the
children were present before the police raided the home. However, respondent still expressed a
belief that Brown was truthful when he denied ever having previously brought drugs into her
home until the day of the raid. Respondent justified her continued interaction with Brown
because she believed that he was genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of her and the
children, as demonstrated by his support in the court proceedings and efforts to substantiate her
lack of knowledge or involvement with the presence of drugs in her residence.
Considering that this was the fifth time respondent’s children were removed from her
care and custody, combined with evidence of respondent’s continued contact with Brown and her
belief that he was truthful about his previous involvement in drug use at her home, the trial court
-2-
did not clearly err in determining the statutory bases for termination had been proven by clear
and convincing evidence.
There was also clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best
interests. There was evidence that respondent loved her children and had previously worked
diligently to regain custody. There was also evidence that the children loved respondent and
wanted to remain with her. Respondent was angry with herself for subjecting her children to the
drug raid, which resulted in yet another separation for her children. Respondent had maintained
her most recent employment for a period of almost 90 days. She had medical insurance available
for the children. Respondent had a new residence and was up to date on her rent and utilities,
and had sufficient income through her employment to pay for these necessities.
However, there was also clear and convincing evidence that respondent was subjecting
her children to a chaotic and unstable lifestyle. At the time of the drug raid of her residence,
respondent was not employed and she relied on Brown’s assistance to pay her routine expenses.
On the day of the raid, respondent left her 13-year-old daughter in charge of the three younger
children. The teenage daughter also had friends present in the home. Respondent acknowledged
that she was not familiar with at least one of her daughter’s friends that were present. Brown
arrived at the residence with three additional adults after respondent had left. Brown admitted to
smoking marijuana in the living room while all the children were present. Eric Walker, the
father of two of respondent’s children, testified that when the children were taken from
respondent’s custody in 2007, he was unable to care for them because he was incarcerated for
possession of cocaine. The police raid that initiated this petition constituted the fifth occasion
necessitating removal of the children from respondent’s custody and their placement in foster
care. At the time of the termination hearing, respondent was still permitting her belief in
Brown’s veracity to override her responsibility to her children. Respondent’s children deserved
and needed permanence and stability in their lives. The trial court did not err in entering an
order terminating respondent’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-3-
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.