IN RE MICHALS-BILLINGS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AMB and NMB, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 21, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 236087
Sanilac Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-033767-NA
KATIE MICHALS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DARRYL BILLINGS,
Respondent.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Jansen and Wilder, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b), (g) and (j). We affirm.
This matter came to petitioner’s attention on November 2, 2000. Respondent, Danton
Street and the respondent’s children, ages 1 and 2, lived together. In late October 2000,
respondent started a new job and Danton Street babysat the children while she was at work.
After one such occasion, Street’s sister, Jessica Street, noticed a bruise near the eye and across
the nose of the two-year-old child. She asked respondent about the bruise and respondent told
her that the child had crawled on top of a bar stool which fell over on the child. Then, on
November 2, 2000, Jessica Street picked the children up to baby-sit them and noticed additional
bruising on the two-year-old’s face and diaper area, while the one year old child had a badly
swollen finger and bruising on the palm. Several hours later Jessica Street called the police.
The children were taken to the hospital, where the examining physicians observed
multiple, severe bruises on the two year old and concluded that the two year old was the victim
of physical abuse and neglect (sexual abuse could not be ruled out), and that the bruising on the
one year old was also indicative of physical abuse since the bruises were not typical for a child of
-1-
this age and clearly were not self induced. Protective Services was then contacted by the
hospital. Before Protective Services arrived, respondent attempted to leave the hospital with the
children but was prevented from driving away by one of the physicians, who used his vehicle to
prevent respondent’s vehicle from being able to leave the parking lot. The police were
dispatched to the scene, and after the police chief explained to respondent that she needed to wait
for Protective Services to arrive, respondent walked away from the hospital, leaving the car in
the parking lot with the children inside.
The trial court entered an order taking temporary custody of the children on November 3,
2000, and began a preliminary hearing, which concluded on November 16, 2000 with respondent
waiving the probable cause determination. The trial court referred the case to mediation, and
after mediation attempts failed, on December 20, 2000, petitioner filed an amended petition
seeking termination of respondent’s parental rights at the initial disposition hearing. Before and
while the dispositional hearing was conducted, petitioner provided supervised visitation to
respondent, and respondent was urged to attend a 14-week parenting program. In addition, a
psychological evaluation of respondent was completed.
During the dispositional hearing, the medical evidence established and the trial court
found that both children had been subjected to significant physical injury that could have been
but was not prevented by respondent. The trial court also found that Danton Street inflicted the
injuries on the children, that respondent should have been aware that Street was inflicting these
injuries, and that nevertheless, respondent continued the relationship with Street then and
through the course of the proceedings. The trial court found, based on testimony from the
psychologist who conducted the psychological evaluation of respondent, that respondent had a
personality disorder which made her likely to be involved with relationships without evaluating
the risks to herself or her children, and that she was not likely to protect her children without
successful treatment of the disorder. The trial court also found that it would take at least a year
to treat respondent, if she fully participated in her treatment and could be rehabilitated, and that it
was reasonably likely that the children would suffer additional injury or abuse during this time if
they remained in respondent’s care. The trial court further found that even if respondent could
be rehabilitated, i.e. respondent successfully took full advantage of all available intensive
intervention services, the minimum one year timetable necessary to achieve this goal was
unreasonable given the age of the children. Finally, the trial court found that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was not clearly not in the children’s best interests. This appeal
ensued.
We find that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(b)(ii), (b)(iii), (g)
and (j) were each established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633;
593 NW2d 520 (1999). The evidence supports the trial court’s findings that respondent failed to
protect her children from the abuse inflicted by Danton Street, and that respondent was
continuing her relationship with Street at the time of the termination hearing, which would place
the children at continued risk if they were in respondent’s care. In addition, the evidence
supports the trial court’s additional finding that respondent had a personality disorder which
contributed significantly to her failure to protect the children, that this personality disorder
required, at a minimum, a year or more of intensive therapy, that respondent was not reasonably
likely to protect her children from abuse without this intensive intervention, and that given the
-2-
age of the children, this minimum one year timetable for rehabilitation of respondent was
unreasonable.
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); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354;
612 NW2d 407 (2000.) Accordingly, termination of respondent’s parental rights was
appropriate.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-3-
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.
