IN RE BAILEY MINORSAnnotate this Case
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of HOPE MARIA BAILEY and
JAYSON MATTHEW BAILEY, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
December 22, 1998
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 89-281368
RONNIE BAILEY, WILLIAM STRINGER, and
JAMES WESLEY WILLIAMS,
Before: Markman, P.J., and Bandstra and J.F. Kowalski*, JJ.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right a juvenile court 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. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent-appellant argues that clear and convincing evidence did not exist to terminate her
parental rights. We disagree. This family came to the attention of the court in 1989. Respondent
appellant has a history of abusing drugs, and both minor children were born addicted to cocaine. After
numerous review hearings, jurisdiction of the court was dismissed in 1994, and the children were
returned to respondent-appellant’s care. In 1996, the children were again returned to the attention of
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
the court after respondent-appellant physically abused Hope and was unable to maintain suitable
housing. A termination petition was later filed after respondent-appellant failed to comply with a
parent/agency agreement that required her to remain drug-free, obtain suitable housing and employment,
attend counseling and complete a psychiatric evaluation, and visit the children on a weekly basis.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564
NW2d 156 (1997); In re Vasquez, 199 Mich App 44, 51-52; 501 NW2d 231 (1993). After the
children were removed from respondent-appellant’s home, respondent-appellant indicated that she only
wanted to regain custody of Jayson and not Hope because she felt hostility toward Hope because Hope
was conceived as a result of a rape. However, the record shows that Jayson was also the product of a
rape, and, thus, the possibility exists that respondent-appellant will develop the same hostility toward
Jayson. Further, respondent-appellant failed to maintain adequate housing and failed to regularly visit
Jayson for the majority of the time that he was in foster care in 1997. Although respondent-appellant
did attend parenting classes, she failed to maintain consistent employment throughout the proceedings
and failed to complete counseling sessions. Based on respondent-appellant’s inability to care for Jayson
on a regular basis and the fact that Jayson has been in alternate care for the majority of his eight years
and was in need of a stable environment, the evidence clearly showed that respondent-appellant was
unlikely to be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time given Jayson’s age.
Further, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the
children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, supra.
Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
Respondent-appellant’s claim that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction over Jayson is not
properly before this Court because respondent-appellant did not raise this issue in her statement of
questions presented or provide a transcript from the dispositional hearing. Maryland Casualty Co v
Allen, 221 Mich App 26, 32-33; 561 NW2d 103 (1997); Taylor v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
Michigan, 205 Mich App 644, 654; 517 NW2d 864 (1994). In any event, the claim is without merit
because the petition alleged facts sufficient to establish the court’s jurisdiction under MCL
712A.2(b)(2); MSA 27.3178(598.2)(b)(2), and respondent-appellant cannot collaterally attack the
juvenile court’s exercise of that jurisdiction. In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426; 505 NW2d 834 (1993); In
re Powers, 208 Mich App 582, 587-588; 528 NW2d 799 (1995).
/s/ Stephen J. Markman
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ John F. Kowalski