IN RE TREADWELL/CIPONAER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of M.L.T. and J.L.C., Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 13, 2010
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 295348
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 08-476279-NA
ANNA-MARIE CIPONAER,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., and O’CONNELL and WILDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from an order that terminated her parental rights to the
minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), (j), and (k)(i). We affirm. This
appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination of
respondent’s parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Trejo,
462 Mich 341, 355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). In February 2008, there were allegations that
M.L.T.’s father, Shawn Treadwell, abused three-month-old M.L.T. by using a hair dryer on her
face and legs. M.L.T. was not immediately removed from respondent’s care because none of the
abuse allegations involved respondent and she acted appropriately in seeking medical treatment
for M.L.T. However, M.L.T. was removed from respondent’s care within weeks after it was
discovered that she was allowing Treadwell to have contact with the child. His rights were
terminated in May 2008, and respondent was required to undergo a psychological evaluation,
attend parenting classes, attend individual counseling, secure adequate housing, and secure a
legal source of income. Treadwell was to have no contact with M.L.T.
Respondent began working on her service agreement in earnest starting in November
2008. She completed the psychological evaluation and had missed only one parenting class. She
attended individual counseling and was making some progress. She found housing separate from
Treadwell and reported that she was working as a waitress. Respondent gave birth to J.L.C. in
January 2009. Her treatment plan for J.L.C.’s case was exactly the same. She was in full
compliance with her service agreement and was enjoying unsupervised day visits with the
children.
-1-
However, things simply fell apart in April 2009. Respondent stopped visiting the
children, and she lost her housing after the adoption agency that had been paying her rent
stopped doing so when she decided not to place J.L.C. up for adoption. She moved to a motel
and then ultimately moved in with a friend. The friend’s home was appropriate, but respondent’s
name was not on the lease. Although respondent reported that she was working, she never
provided proof of income. She stopped attending counseling, stopped contacting the foster care
worker, and was nearly impossible to reach because she changed her number so often. She was
pregnant again. Respondent had no stability and was in exactly the same position she had been
when the court first became involved in February 2008. M.L.T. had been a temporary ward for
20 months. J.L.C. had been a temporary ward his entire life. The children did not know
respondent as their mother. They deserved permanence and stability. For these reasons, the trial
court did not err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination of respondent’s parental
rights had been established and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
