IN RE CALHOUN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TLC and MJC, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 25, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234605
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-030304-NA
WRENETHA CALHOUN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JAMES ROOSEVELT,
Respondent.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and O’Connell and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm. This case
is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j) were established by
clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I), In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161
(1989). Petitioner-appellee’s evidence established that respondent-appellant failed to address her
substance abuse and mental health problems. We find no merit to respondent-appellant’s
argument that petitioner failed to provide her with the services she needed to reunify her family.
Respondent-appellant had two opportunities to benefit from treatment programs arranged
through her probation, but she did not properly avail herself of these opportunities. There is no
reason to believe that respondent-appellant would have performed better had the services been
arranged through petitioner-appellee rather than through the probation officer. We also find no
merit to any of respondent-appellant’s arguments that the trial court improperly considered
federal funding or adoption subsidy issues when it ordered termination of her parental rights.
-1-
Because the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests, the trial court did not err in terminating her
parental rights. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407
(2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
