IN RE BURROWS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MELISSA BURROWS, SARAH
BURROWS and JENNIFER BURROWS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY
UNPUBLISHED
June 26, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 204379
Tuscola Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-006076-NA
KENNETH J. BURROWS and JANICE C.
BURROWS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hood, P.J., and MacKenzie and Doctoroff, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondents appeal as of right from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to the
minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i). We affirm.
Respondents first contend that they were denied effective assistance of counsel because their
attorney failed to present evidence that termination was clearly not in the children’s best interest. See
MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5). We disagree. We apply by analogy the principles of
ineffective assistance of counsel as they have developed in the context of criminal law. In re Rogers,
160 Mich App 500, 502; 409 NW2d 486 (1987). Effective assistance of counsel is presumed, and
respondents bear a heavy burden of proving otherwise. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel,
respondents must show that counsel’s performance was below an objective standard of reasonableness
under prevailing professional norms and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error,
the result of the proceedings would have been different. People v Effinger, 212 Mich App 67, 69;
536 NW2d 809 (1995). Because respondents did not move for an evidentiary hearing on this issue,
this Court’s review is limited to mistakes apparent on the record. People v Hurst, 205 Mich App 634,
641; 517 NW2d 858 (1994).
-1
It is not apparent from the record what specific evidence counsel failed to present in connection
with this issue. Moreover, contrary to respondents’ assertion, the record shows that counsel did elicit
evidence, and also argued before the trial court that termination of respondents’ parental rights was not
in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, respondents have not established ineffective assistance of
counsel.
Respondents also argue that the trial court’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous and that the
termination of parental rights was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree. A
decision regarding the termination of parental rights is reviewed in its entirety for clear error. In re
Hamlet (After Remand), 225 Mich App 505, 515; 571 NW2d 750 (1997). A court’s finding is
clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made. MCR 5.974; In re Conley, 216 Mich App 41, 42; 549
NW2d 353 (1996).
The petition was filed in June, 1995 alleging that respondents’ house was in “an unsafe and
unsanitary condition.” Specifically, garbage, empty bottles and old clothing were piled throughout the
house, and there was rotten food and feces on the floor. The home had a strong odor of urine. The
toilet did not flush, and there were mice and fleas in the home. Evidence was presented that the
Department of Social Services (now the Family Independence Agency) had received complaints about
the condition of the home as far back as 1989. Photographs taken in August and September, 1995
depicted piles of rubbish and food throughout the home as described in the original petition. A
caseworker who visited the home in September and October, 1995 testified that the home was in
substantially the same condition as it had been when the petition was filed, except that the kitchen had
been cleaned for a brief period, and that the home still had a strong odor. Respondents’ daughter
Melissa testified that the home had been in this condition for as long as she could remember, with the
exception of one occasion when some relatives came to visit. As noted by the juvenile court, the
children suffered from asthma and other respiratory problems that were attributable to the unsanitary
conditions, and that improved after the children were removed from the home. Respondents now argue
that the decision to terminate was not supported by clear and convincing evidence because they were
not given the opportunity to remedy the situation “due in part to the lack of guidance, unrelated major
structural defects in the home, and virtual poverty.” Given the severity and the persistence of the
deplorable conditions in which the family had been living, we reject respondents’ eleventh hour plea for
another chance. On this record, we find that the court did not clearly err in ordering the termination of
respondents’ parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
-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.