IN RE MILTON/KING/HAMILTON/BROOKS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ZEALQUASHA HAMILTON,
KIEONA HAMILTON, ZEAL HAMILTON,
VERNETTA HAMILTON, and TREVARYA
ZEQUJION BROOKS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 9, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 227016
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-063335-NA
LATONYA BROOKS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOE HARIS, JOHN DOE, and ZEAL HAMILTON,
Respondents.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Smolenski and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant LaTonya Brooks appeals as of right from an order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
In a termination hearing, the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a statutory basis
for termination by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(F)(3). The petitioner need only
establish one statutory ground for termination. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 360; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). This Court reviews for clear error the trial court’s decision that a ground for
termination has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 356-357; MCR 5.974(I).
“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ [if] although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court
on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
-1-
In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989), quoting In re Riffe, 147 Mich App 658,
671; 382 NW2d 842 (1985).
The trial court first assumed jurisdiction over the four older children when respondent
celebrated her birthday by spending the family’s money on drugs, resulting in the family’s loss of
housing. After the four older children had spent over two years in foster care, the trial court
found clear and convincing evidence to terminate respondent’s parental rights under MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), because more than 182 days had elapsed
since the initial dispositional order, the conditions that led to the adjudication continued to exist
and there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions would be rectified within a reasonable
time considering the children’s ages. The trial court’s finding that petitioner established at least
one statutory ground for termination is supported by the evidence in the record demonstrating
that respondent was cross-addicted to heroin, crack cocaine and alcohol, that she failed to comply
with the treatment plan, and that she failed to resolve her drug addiction during the pendency of
this case.
When respondent gave birth to her youngest child, Trevarya Zequjion Brooks, both
respondent and the child tested positive for cocaine and heroin and the child experienced medical
complications due to the drugs present in his system. The trial court found clear and convincing
evidence to terminate respondent’s parental rights regarding this child under MCL
712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g), because respondent had failed to provide proper
care or custody for the child and there was no reasonable expectation that she would be able to
provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the child’s age. We do not
believe that the trial court clearly erred in finding that a statutory basis for termination of
respondent’s parental rights had been proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Once a statutory basis for termination has been shown, the trial court shall terminate
parental rights unless it finds that doing so is clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); MCR 5.974(F)(3); Trejo, supra at 344. This Court
reviews the trial court’s decision regarding the child’s best interests for clear error. Id. at 356357. The trial court may consider evidence introduced by any party when determining whether
termination is clearly not in a child’s best interest and neither the petitioner nor the party
opposing termination bears the burden of proving the best interests of the child because
subsection 19b(5) permits the court to determine the child’s best interests from the evidence on
the whole record. Id. at 352-353.
We do not believe that the trial court clearly erred in determining the best interests of the
children. There was testimony in the record that respondent and her children shared an
appropriate bond, and we find it unfortunate that these children had to be taken from their
mother’s care. However, the record supports a finding that respondent failed to resolve her
serious drug addictions, despite the numerous services offered to her. The record further
-2-
supports a determination that there was no reasonable likelihood that respondent would be able to
resolve her addictions within a reasonable period of time, given the children’s ages.
Affirmed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-3-
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.
