IN RE STEPHANIE MARIE HUSHOUR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of S.M.H., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 25, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234620
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-367708
PATRICIA ANN HUSHOUR,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GERALD ALBERT BLACKLOCK,
Respondent.
In the Matter of S.M.H., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234621
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-367708
GERALD ALBERT BLACKLOCK,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PATRICIA ANN HUSHOUR,
Respondent.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Griffin and Talbot, JJ.
-1-
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j).
We affirm.
Respondent-mother argues that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights
because petitioner did not make reasonable efforts toward family unification. We disagree.
Respondent-mother fails to indicate what additional services should have been offered to her. It
is insufficient for an appellant to merely announce her position and leave it up to this Court to
discover and rationalize the basis for her claims and then search for authority to sustain or reject
her position. Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243; 577 NW2d 100 (1998). Moreover, the record
supports the trial court’s findings that reasonable efforts were made. For more than two years,
respondent-mother received various referrals and assistance: petitioner referred respondentmother to individual therapy, family therapy, parenting classes, substance abuse services, and
provided her with housing assistance. Respondent-mother failed to avail herself of the assistance
offered to address her substance abuse issues, improve her parenting skills, and comply with her
services plan as required.
Respondent-father argues that the trial court clearly erred in finding that the statutory
grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree. A
review of the record reveals that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory
grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence, given respondentfather’s failure to comply with his services plan, and in particular, his failure to address parenting
responsibilities and his substance abuse problems, resulting in his incarceration. MCR 5.974(I);
In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
