IN RE DEMETRISE STOKES MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DEMETRISE STOKES, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 1, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235765
Calhoun Circuit Court
Juvenile Division
LC No. 01-000063-NA
LATOYA BOYD,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TIMOTHY STOKES,
Respondent.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Zahra and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant, Latoya Boyd, appeals by leave granted an order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
455 NW2d 161 (1989). The evidence indicated that Demetrise suffered several cigarette burns
on his buttocks and one inside his anus. The emergency room doctor who treated Demetrise also
observed several healed burn marks on Demetrise’s buttocks and abrasions on both shoulders.
Respondent Timothy Stokes claimed the most recent burns were caused when he accidentally
dropped his cigarette. Respondent-appellant’s mother testified below that Demetrise suffered
abuse at the hands of Stokes on a prior occasion and that respondent-appellant was aware of the
prior abuse. It is undisputed that the most recent injuries were inflicted when respondentappellant allowed Stokes to be alone with Demetrise. It is also undisputed that Stokes told
respondent-appellant of the burns soon after they occurred, but respondent-appellant did not get
Demetrise proper medical attention until the next evening. Despite the injuries to Demetrise,
respondent-appellant has indicated an unequivocal desire to maintain a relationship with Stokes.
-1-
On appeal, respondent-appellant argues that she was not provided adequate services prior
to termination. A parent is not entitled to services prior to termination of their parental rights.
See MCR 5.974(D) (providing that termination is possible at the initial dispositional hearing);
see also MCL 712A.18f.
Respondent-appellant underwent a court-ordered psychiatric
evaluation. The psychologist opined respondent-appellant would require two years of treatment
before she could be considered for placement. Even then, the psychologist’s prognosis for
respondent-appellant was merely "fair." The FIA caseworker agreed with the psychologist’s
two-year timeframe. Under the circumstances of this case, where the evidence supports the
findings that respondent-appellant knew of the dangers Stokes presented to Demetrise, continued
to expose Demetrise to further abuse by Stokes, failed to get Demetrise prompt medical
attention, and indicated a clear desire to maintain a relationship with Stokes, the court did not
clearly err in finding termination was warranted. The decision not to provide lengthy services to
respondent-appellant does not alter that conclusion.
Furthermore, there is not clear and convincing evidence, on the whole record, suggesting
that termination was not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 354, 364-365; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Accordingly, the juvenile court did not clearly err in
terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
