IN RE CHRISTOPHER BRADNER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER BRADNER and
AIMEE BRADNER, Minors
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, f/k/a
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 10, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 199423
Jackson Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-018474-NA
MELISSA BRADNER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
WILLIAM KOHN and KEVIN KELLER,
Respondents.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, f/k/a
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 199454
Jackson Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-018474-NA
WILLIAM KOHN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MELISSA BRADNER and KEVIN KELLER,
-1
Respondents.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Doctoroff and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from a November 5, 1996,
juvenile court order terminating the parental rights of respondent-mother Bradner to Christopher (date
of birth 12/22/90) and Aimee (date of birth 7/30/93), and respondent-father Kohn to Christopher1
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
On appeal from termination of parental rights proceedings, this Court reviews the probate
court’s decision in its entirety for clear error. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472; 564 NW2d
156 (1997). A finding is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, this Court, on the
entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In re Miller,
433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, regard is to be given to the special opportunity
of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it. MCR 2.613(C); In re
Miller, supra.
Testimony at the hearing showed that respondent Bradner did not find suitable housing and
entered into unhealthy and abusive relationships. She also presented with a history of mental illness that
was not fully under control. She had obtained a variety of prescription medications, and at one point
she was taking eleven different medications prescribed by eight different doctors and filled at five
different pharmacies. Bradner’s therapist, Kathy Schafer, MSW, testified that she was unable to give
an opinion regarding Bradner’s ability to safely parent her children.
We find that the trial court did not clearly err in terminating Bradner’s parental rights to the two
children. There was ample evidence that Bradner was not properly caring for the children, mainly due
to her history of mental illness, and that she did not have her mental illness under control such that she
could properly care for the children. Therefore, the trial court’s findings that the conditions leading to
the adjudication continued to exist and there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions would be
rectified within a reasonable time considering the ages of the children, and that the parent, without
regard to intent, failed to provide proper care and custody for the children and there was no reasonable
likelihood that the parent would be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time
are not clearly erroneous.
With respect to respondent Kohn, he had been incarcerated at the time that the initial petition
was filed, and later returned to live with Bradner. Christopher reported that Kohn regularly smoked
marijuana in the home with other members of the household, and described sexually explicit movies that
he had been allowed to watch. This apparently led to inappropriate acting out sexually, although there
was additional evidence that Christopher had been sexually abused by Bradner’s brother. Kohn, who
was on parole, tested positively for marijuana at his random drug screens conducted by the parole
agent. Kohn claimed that he used the marijuana to relieve headache pain and because he was
-2
depressed because of the children. Kohn had been referred to outpatient treatment, which he had not
completed.
We find that he trial court did not clearly err in terminating Kohn’s parental rights to
Christopher. There was ample evidence that Kohn was not properly caring for Christopher. Once
again, the trial court’s findings that the conditions leading to the adjudication continued to exist and there
was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions would be rectified within a reasonable time considering
the ages of the children, and that the parent, without regard to intent, failed to provide proper care and
custody for the children and there was no reasonable likelihood that the parent would be able to provide
proper care and custody within a reasonable time are not clearly erroneous.
With regard to the best interests of the children question, the trial court found that it had “not
been clearly shown that termination of the parent’s rights is not in the children’s best interests.” Because
the parents did not put forth some evidence that termination was clearly not in the children’s best
interests, the trial court properly terminated respondents’ parental rights once it found that a statutory
ground for termination had been met by clear and convincing evidence. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, supra, p 473.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
I concur in result only.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
1
Kohn is Christopher’s father, and Kevin Keller is Aimee’s father. Keller is not appealing the
termination of his parental rights as to Aimee.
-3
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.
