IN RE BRADFORD MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ERIC BRADFORD, ERICA JANAE
BRADFORD, SADE BRADFORD, and BABY BOY
BRADFORD,
a/k/a
DAYSHAWN
HILL
BRADFORD, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 3, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
RUTH BRADFORD,
BRADFORD,
a/k/a
RUTH
ANN
No. 218036
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 87-264124
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ERIC SCAIFE,
Respondent.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Hoekstra and J. R. Cooper*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her parental
rights to Sade Bradford and Baby Boy Bradford, a/k/a Dayshawn Hill Bradford, under MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
Respondent-appellant contends that she was not afforded a reasonable time to improve the
conditions that led to the adjudication regarding her children and that she should have been afforded a
better opportunity to obtain the treatment she requires. We disagree. The evidence disclosed that
respondent-appellant does not have a mental illness that can be treated with medication; rather, she
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
suffers from mental impairments and limitations that are not reasonably likely to change over time.
Although respondent-appellant argues that petitioner failed to produce expert testimony on the issue of
her mental health and prognosis, she has not cited any authority in support of her position that such
expert testimony was required and, therefore, has waived this issue. In re King, 186 Mich App 458,
467; 465 NW2d 1 (1990). Regardless, we note that respondent’s psychological evaluations reveal that
she functions at the cognitive level of a seven- to eleven-year-old child and cannot parent her children
alone. Therefore, the family court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974; In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). 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, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the family court did
not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
-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.
