IN RE MILES MINORAnnotate this Case
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MARCUS D'JUAN MILES, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
December 11, 1998
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 96-339649
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Wahls and Hoekstra, JJ.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and
(j). We affirm.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory ground for termination under
§ 19b(3)(c)(i) was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433
Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The evidence indicated that respondent-appellant continued
to suffer from a mental illness that prevented her from properly caring for her child, that she failed to
remain in treatment for that illness, and that she did not consistently remain on her medication. Although
there was no direct evidence as to how long respondent-appellant would require treatment, the
evidence indicated that it was not reasonably likely that her condition would change within a reasonable
period of time, particularly in light of the fact that she made little, if any, progress during the period of
time that she worked with petitioner. Furthermore, only one statutory ground for termination is
required. In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 52; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). Respondent-appellant
does not address the juvenile court’s finding that termination of her parental rights was also warranted
under §19b(3)(j). Therefore, respondent-appellant is not entitled to relief with regard to the issue
whether a statutory ground for termination was properly established. Roberts & Son Contracting, Inc
v North Oakland Development Corp, 163 Mich App 109, 113; 413 NW2d 744 (1987) (failure to
address a necessary issue precludes relief).
The possibility of relative care placement, as an alternative to terminating respondent-appellant’s
parental rights, was not in the minor child's best interests in this case. In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App
47, 52; 480 NW2d 293 (1991).
Finally, the record does not support respondent-appellant’s claim that petitioner failed to make
reasonable efforts to reunite the family. On the contrary, petitioner attempted to address respondent
appellant's medical problems through treatment, but it was respondent-appellant who failed to complete
treatment and neglected to attend her appointments. The evidence also showed that respondent
appellant disliked the side effects of her medication and, therefore, did not take it consistently. Further,
respondent-appellant was provided with visitation services with her son until the time that he moved to
Texas with a relative, with respondent-appellant’s consent. Thus, petitioner offered appropriate
services and assistance to respondent-appellant and made reasonable efforts to reunite respondent
appellant with her son.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Myron H. Wahls
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra