IN THE MATTER OF A. K. MCQUEEN, MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
June 10, 2010
In the Matter of A. K. McQueen, Minor.
No. 295442
Montcalm Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 09-000396-NA
Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and MARKEY and DAVIS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals by right from a circuit court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(l). We affirm.
It was undisputed that respondent’s parental rights to another child were previously
terminated after the initiation of child protective proceedings under MCL 712A.2(b). Thus, 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) and (J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). Further, because respondent’s parental rights to another child were
previously terminated and respondent placed the child at issue here at an unreasonable risk of
harm by raising her in a drug house, petitioner was permitted to request termination of
respondent’s parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing, MCL 722.638(1)(b) and (2), and
reasonable efforts to reunify respondent with the child were not required, MCL 712A.19a(2)(c).
Further, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich at
356-357. Respondent’s parental rights to his first child were terminated in part because of
substance abuse, domestic violence, and financial instability. These circumstances had not
changed. Respondent still abused drugs, engaged in domestic violence with the child’s mother,
and supported the family by selling drugs. Despite a biannual stipend of $50,000, respondent
was unable to maintain stable housing, and the family was living in a motel room that was
-1-
littered with evidence of respondent’s drug activity. Respondent was unable or unwilling to
provide his child with a safe and stable environment. Therefore, the trial court did not err in
terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child.
We affirm.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-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.
