IN RE ASHER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JOSEPH ASHER and HALEIGH
ASHER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 22, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234402
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-000847-NA
MIRANDA VAUGHAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PAUL ASHER,
Respondent.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Doctoroff and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Miranda Vaughan appeals as of right the order terminating her parental rights
to her children, Joseph and Haleigh Asher. We affirm.
This case began after Haleigh Asher tested positive for cocaine at birth. After
preliminary proceedings, a petition was filed seeking termination of respondents’ parental rights
under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (j), and (l). The trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights
based primarily on her long-term substance abuse problem.
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.
-1-
Respondent does not contest that the statutory grounds for termination were met. She
asserts that termination was not in the best interests of the children.
There was evidence to support the trial court’s finding regarding the best interests of the
children. Respondent had a long-term drug problem that resulted in termination of her parental
rights to two other children. There was no indication that continuing treatment would stop her
from using drugs again. Given the young ages of the children and their success in foster care, the
court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in their best interest.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
