IN RE CURTIS/CURTIS-LINWOOD MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JC, SC, and VCL, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 8, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 233713
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-109250-NA
YVONNE CURTIS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
EMMANUEL CABINE and KEVIN FORD,
Respondents.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to the
minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b), (c), (g), and (j). We affirm.1
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
5.974(I); In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). If the trial court
determines that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one
or more statutory grounds for termination, the court must terminate parental rights unless it finds
from evidence on the whole record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests.
MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review
the trial court’s decision regarding the child’s best interests for clear error. Id., 356-357.
1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of respondents Emmanuel Cabine and
Kevin Ford, the putative fathers of two of the minor children. Cabine and Ford have not
appealed the trial court’s order.
-1-
We hold the trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established one or
more statutory grounds for termination. Petitioner initiated this action after the children received
various injuries, including burns. After the children were taken into foster care, one child
reported that respondent threatened him with serious physical harm because she was angry with
him. The evidence clearly established it was reasonably likely the children would suffer further
physical injury if returned to respondent’s care. MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and (j). Respondent’s
longstanding substance abuse problem, including abuse of cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol, also
led petitioner to seek custody of the children. The evidence showed respondent’s attempts to
address the problem were sporadic and largely unsuccessful, and it was not reasonably likely that
the condition would be rectified within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages. MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i). In addition, petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence respondent
failed to provide proper care and custody for the children, and there was no reasonable
expectation that she would be able to do so within a reasonable time considering the children’s
ages. MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). Finally, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra.
We affirm.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
