IN RE CIYAH MONYA SHEPHERD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of C.M.S., Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 13, 2010
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 294226
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-426052-NA
DOROTHY M. BAILEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANTHONY SHEPHERD,
Respondent.
In the Matter of C.M.S., Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 294227
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-426052-NA
ANTHONY SHEPHERD,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DOROTHY M. BAILEY,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., and O’CONNELL and WILDER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court’s order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j) and,
with respect to respondent-mother only, (i) and (l). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. See MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich
331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the evidence clearly established that termination was
in the child’s best interests. See MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357;
612 NW2d 407 (2000).
There was clear and convincing evidence that respondent-mother’s parental rights to two
of the child’s siblings had been terminated due to serious and chronic neglect, and prior attempts
to rehabilitate respondent-mother had been unsuccessful. In February 2004, two of respondentmother’s children were placed in temporary court custody due to environmental neglect, medical
neglect, drug exposure, failure to thrive, and respondent-mother’s history of substance abuse. At
that time, respondent-mother also had three other children who were in the care of the maternal
grandmother who was their legal guardian. Respondent-mother admitted that her older child did
not attend school regularly and that he was a grade behind as a result of his sporadic attendance.
Respondent-mother had a history of cocaine and marijuana use and one of her children was born
with a positive cocaine test. The children were placed with respondent-mother and petitioner
provided her with services, which were not successful. Respondent-mother attended a drug
assessment but did not follow through with the recommendations. She left treatment after 30
days and failed to submit any random drug screens because she admitted she was still using
cocaine. Respondent-mother did not have housing or a legal income and she failed to visit her
children. Respondent-mother’s parental rights to the two children were terminated pursuant to
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).
In the instant case, respondent-mother admitted to cocaine use while she was pregnant
with C.M.S. Respondent-mother did not have any income and did not have suitable housing.
Because respondent-mother failed to address any of the issues that led to the termination of her
rights to her other children, exposed this child to cocaine during her pregnancy, and could not
support this child, the trial court did not err in finding that statutory grounds for termination of
her rights to this child were established by clear and convincing evidence. Considering
respondent-mother’s prior terminations because of substance abuse and her continued substance
abuse, the trial court also did not err in concluding that termination of respondent-mother’s
parental rights was in the child’s best interests.
With regard to respondent-father, four days after the baby’s birth the Protective Services
investigator visited respondents at respondent-father’s home to inform them that a petition was
being filed. She informed respondent-father that the child could not be placed with respondentmother. At that time, respondents were living together and because of that the child had to be
placed in foster care. Respondent-father did not express any interest in planning without
respondent-mother. Respondent-father was not employed at that time. At the termination
hearing, respondent-father testified that he had six other children, ages 22, 20, 16, 12, 11, and 10.
-2-
He had worked for the post office for 17 years and paid child support for his children the entire
17 years. However, respondent-father quit his job at the post office because he said that the child
support obligation took too much of his salary. After respondent-father quit his job, he was in
arrears with his child support obligation and he began having criminal problems. Respondentfather took a job that paid in cash and he did not report his income so that he would not be
subject to child support garnishment.
At the time of the termination hearing, respondent-father was incarcerated for violating
his probation. He had past convictions for drug possession, uttering and publishing, and
shoplifting. He was incarcerated twice in 2008. When he was released from jail this time,
respondent-father planned to live in his mother’s home where he had been living since 1981.
Respondent-father stated that the child could share his bedroom with him. Considering that
respondent-father did not initially seek custody of the child, his history of criminality and his
current incarceration, and his failure to maintain legal employment in order to avoid paying child
support, the trial court did not clearly in err in finding that statutory grounds to terminate
respondent-father’s parental rights had been established.
The trial court also did not clearly err in concluding that termination of respondentfather’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. Respondent-father testified that he
thought that he had a good father/child relationship with his six other children, and yet he only
saw them “every couple of months” and did not support them. He was unemployed when the
child was born, was incarcerated at the time of the termination hearing, and did not have a
feasible plan for caring for the child. This young child deserved stability and permanency, which
respondent-father was unable to provide. The trial court did not err in terminating respondentfather’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
