IN RE SAVANNAH MARIE HILL MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SAVANNAH MARIE HILL,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 12, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 221440
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-040716
AFTER REMAND
JANICE MARIE HILL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOEY HILL
Respondent.
Before: Bandstra, C.J., and Gage and Wilder, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant (“respondent”), the involved minor’s biological mother, appeals as
of right from a family court order terminating her parental rights pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). We previously remanded
this case to the family court for further explication of its findings and legal conclusions. We now
affirm.
The family court did not err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]he
conditions that led to the adjudication continue to exist and there is no reasonable likelihood that
the conditions will be rectified within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.” MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357;
612 NW2d 407 (2000). There was evidence that the involved minor initially was removed from
respondent’s care due to respondent’s lack of suitable housing, including respondent’s failure in
late 1997 and early 1998 to maintain income and suitable housing despite that Families First
obtained housing and paid a security deposit and an initial month’s rent for respondent and the
-1-
minor. Furthermore, at the time of the hearing respondent remained imprisoned and possessed
an uncertain outdate on parole.
Moreover, given respondent’s (1) history of heroin abuse occurring as recently as
February 1998, after the instant minor’s removal, which substance abuse respondent
acknowledged interfered with her ability to maintain employment before her March 1998
incarceration; (2) respondent’s failure to visit the minor consistently before her incarceration; (3)
respondent’s failure to comply with the parent-agency agreement’s provisions that respondent
engage in domestic violence and self-esteem counseling, parenting classes, and substance abuse
treatment programs; and (4) the uncertainty whether respondent would remain substance free1
and when respondent would earn parole, obtain an income and a suitable home, we cannot
conclude that the family court erred in determining that “[t]he parent, without regard to intent,
fails to provide proper care or custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that
the parent will be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering
the child’s age.” MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g).
Furthermore, while respondent during her incarceration made commendable efforts
toward beginning a substance free existence and improving her parenting skills, the facts that
respondent’s parental rights to three older siblings were terminated in 1996, that respondent
repeatedly demonstrated an inability to properly care for her children, that respondent’s ability to
establish a substance free lifestyle, employment and housing remained uncertain, that evidence of
respondent’s bonding with the minor was lacking,2 and that the very young involved minor
meanwhile required a nurturing and secure environment adequately supported the family court’s
finding that termination best served the minor’s interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo, supra at 352-354, 356-357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
1
To the extent that the family court disbelieved respondent’s testimony that prison counseling
programs had helped her alter her lifestyle, we will not second guess this credibility
determination. Mogle v Scriver, 241 Mich App 192, 201; 614 NW2d 696 (2000) (“When
reviewing the trial court’s findings of fact, this Court defers to the trial court on issues of
credibility.”).
2
Testimony at the termination hearing indicated that, for one reason or another, respondent
visited the minor only twice after the minor’s November 1997 removal.
-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.