IN RE FLEMING/MITCHELL MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
September 2, 2010
In the Matter of FLEMING/MITCHELL, Minors.
No. 296092
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC Nos. 2008-000720-NA
2008-000721-NA
2008-000722-NA
Before: WILDER, P.J., and CAVANAGH and SAAD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to
the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding the statutory grounds for termination
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356;
612 NW2d 407 (2000). The evidence showed that respondent was provided repeated referrals
for mental health and substance abuse treatment, drug screens, and parenting classes. However,
respondent largely failed to avail herself of the referrals or to rectify the conditions that caused
the children’s removal. The evidence supported the trial court’s findings that she would be
unable to provide proper care or custody within a reasonable time. Further, the children would
be at risk in her care, since she continued to abuse drugs, had not addressed her depression, and
was still emotionally dependent on her husband, who had abused her daughters. Clear and
convincing evidence supported termination of her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i),
(g), and (j). In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1, 24-26; 761 NW2d 253 (2008); In re Powers Minors,
244 Mich App 111, 118-119; 624 NW2d 422 (2000).
We also find no clear error in the trial court’s determination that termination was in the
children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, 462 Mich at 356. The children needed a
permanent, safe, and stable home, which respondent could not provide. Giving respondent more
time would prolong the children’s confusion with very little chance of success.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Henry William Saad
-1-
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.
