IN RE SHANE MICHAEL LADD MINOR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS __________________________________________ In re SHANE MICHAEL LADD, SHEYENNE MARIE LADD, HEATHER SHANTAL LADD and CORY JAMES LADD, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED November 4, 1997 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 197892 Genesee Juvenile Court LC No. 94-010064-NA TINA LADD, Respondent-Appellant, and TROY E. ROBERTS, Respondent. Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and Gribbs, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (ii), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (ii), (g) and (j). We affirm. There was clear and convincing evidence presented at the termination hearing to warrant termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights. The juvenile court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989); MCR 5.974(I). Respondent­ appellant’s personal problems required extensive therapy before she could be a fit parent, and her therapist estimated it would take two to five years before she would be in a position to care for her children. It therefore was not error for the court to terminate her rights when, after the children had -1­ been in temporary care for over a year and a half, she had made little progress in addressing her personal problems. Furthermore, respondent-appellant did not offer a suitable relative to care for the children while she sought treatment. It was not error for the juvenile court to terminate respondent-appellant’s rights when placement with her sister was not in the children’s best interests. In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 52; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). Respondent-appellant also argues that she was not provided with appropriate services due to her disability of post-traumatic stress syndrome, contrary to the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12101 et seq. We find no merit to this argument. Assuming that the ADA applies to termination proceedings, respondent failed to present evidence in the juvenile court that, due to a cognizable disability, she required other or different services than provided by petitioner. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to support respondent-appellant’s claim that she was unable to benefit from the services offered. Furthermore, we find that petitioner provided more than adequate services to respondent-appellant to address her parenting deficiencies. Affirmed. /s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr. /s/ Michael J. Kelly /s/ Roman S. Gribbs -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.