IN RE TREAT & LEIGH MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KAYLA MARIE TREAT, JEREMY
WAYNE LEIGH, JOHN WAYNE LEIGH, and
KRISTA MAY LEIGH, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 28, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 222249
Barry Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-005127-NA
MELISSA KAY LEIGH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JERRY WAYNE LEIGH,
Respondent.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Fitzgerald and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant (respondent) appeals as of right from the family court’s order terminating
her parental rights to her four minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i). We affirm.
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(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445
NW2d 161 (1989). Further, respondent failed to present evidence 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’s parental rights to the minor children. Id. at 472.
-1
We also reject respondent’s claim that petitioner failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite her
with her children. The case service plan must set forth the efforts the parent must make to be reunited
with the children, as well as the efforts petitioner must make to facilitate reunification. See MCL
712A.18f(3)(b) and (c); MSA 27.3178(598.18f)(3)(b) and (c). The case service plan in this case
specified that respondent was to take the initiative in complying with the plan. The record demonstrates
that reasonable opportunities were provided to respondent, but that she failed to take advantage of
them.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
