IN RE NEAL COLE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of NEAL COLE and SHEILA
MARTEEZE COLE, Minors.
_________________________________________
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 19, 1997
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 201086
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 92-302174
CLAUDIA COLE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Markman and Whitbeck, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the juvenile court’s amended order terminating her parental
rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i)
and (g). We affirm.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161
(1989); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 471-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). The conditions that
caused the court to assume jurisdiction in this case continued to exist at the time of the termination
hearing. When the children were removed from respondent’s care, she lacked the skills to provide even
the most basic child care, such as providing daily feedings. While respondent was never trained in how
to care for children or even herself, there was little likelihood that she could learn to independently care
for the children within a reasonable amount of time even with intensive training. She required at least a
couple of years of intensive training to learn to provide even the most basic care. Furthermore, even if
respondent received training in child care, she lacked the necessary personality traits to properly care
for children, such as empathy, nurturing qualities, and sensitivity to children’s needs. There was no
evidence that these problems could be rectified with training.
-1
The juvenile court’s decision to terminate respondent’s rights under either §§ 3(c)(i) or (g) was
supported by clear and convincing evidence and termination of respondent’s rights was in the children’s
best interests. Respondent has therefore not shown that she was denied due process of law in light of
the evidence of long-term neglect of the children that supported the juvenile court’s decision to terminate
respondent’s rights. Fritts v Krugh, 354 Mich 97, 116; 92 NW2d 604 (1958), overruled in part on
other grounds in In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 440-444; 505 NW2d 834 (1993).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Stephen J. Markman
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
-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.
