IN RE BOLLES MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ERIC DONALD BOLLES, JR.,
and MARISSA LARENE BOLLES, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 1, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 235776
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-033015-NA
ERIC D. BOLLES, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant
and
ADELIA BOLLES,
Respondent.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and O’Connell and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Eric Bolles, Sr. appeals as of right the order terminating his parental rights to
the minor children. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
Under MCL 712A.19b(3), the petitioner for the termination of parental rights bears the
burden of proving at least one ground for termination. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341; 617
NW2d 407 (2000). Once the petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that
persuades the court that a ground for termination is established, termination of parental rights is
mandatory unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. Id.,
355-356. Decisions terminating parental rights are reviewed for clear error. Id., 356.
The trial court found that the evidence established that the two grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. Under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii), the court
found that respondent’s substance abuse problem came to light after the court took jurisdiction.
The evidence established that respondent had a serious problem with substance abuse, and he
repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s orders in regard to testing and treatment. The court
-1-
could reasonably disregard respondent’s testimony that he had solved his drug problem on his
own, because he provided no other evidence to confirm that he had stopped using drugs, and
would be able to maintain his abstinence without support.
In regard to MCL 712A.19b(3)(j), the evidence showed that despite the fact that
respondent had completed anger management classes, he was subsequently found guilty of
violating a personal protection order relating to his ex-wife. The evidence supported the court’s
finding that there was a reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed if they were
returned to respondent’s home. The court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds
for termination were established. There is no evidence showing that the termination was clearly
not in the best interests of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5).
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.
