IN RE SANDRA KAY BAILEY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of S.K.B., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 12, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236724
Grand Traverse Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-000175-NA
JEAN BAILEY,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Saad and E. M. Thomas*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
daughter pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), and (j).1 We affirm.
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
5.974(I); In re Sours, 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, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review the trial
court’s decision regarding the child’s best interests for clear error. Id., 356-357.
We hold that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established one or
more statutory grounds for termination of respondent’s parental rights. Petitioner took custody
of the child shortly after birth based on evidence that respondent failed to protect two other
children from repeated sexual abuse.2 The evidence showed that respondent failed to express
1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of non-participating defendant
Richard Ferguson, the child’s putative father. Ferguson has not appealed the order.
2
Respondent voluntarily relinquished her parental rights to those children.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
concern about the abuse, and in fact denied that it occurred. How a parent treats one child is
probative of how the parent might treat another child. See In re Powers, 208 Mich App 582,
593; 528 NW2d 799 (1995). Respondent’s lack of concern about the abuse of her other children
was probative of her ability to protect this child from similar abuse.
Counselors with whom respondent treated opined that respondent was unable to set
appropriate boundaries for herself, and thus could not be expected to provide proper care for a
child. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental
rights was warranted on the grounds that a sibling of the child suffered sexual abuse which
respondent failed to prevent and it was reasonably likely that this child would suffer similar
abuse if placed in respondent’s home, MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), that respondent failed to provide
proper care or custody and could not be expected to do so within a reasonable time, MCL
712A.19b(3)(g), and that it was reasonably likely that the child would be harmed if returned to
respondent’s home, MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). The evidence did not show that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCR 5.974(I); Trejo,
supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Edward M. Thomas
-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.