IN RE ERIC VAUGHAN-DE'ANDRE GAINS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of E.V.D.G., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 29, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238135
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-374163
BARBARA J GAINS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Wilder and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j).1 We affirm. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent argues the trial court clearly erred because respondent was in substantial
compliance with the parent/agency agreement and had provided negative drug screen results.
We disagree. At the time of the trial court’s termination order, the child had been in foster care
for two and one-half years. Notwithstanding a number of negative drug screenings, respondent
continued to have substance abuse problems. Respondent was not consistent in her compliance
with random screenings and she failed to provide any evidence that she had completed drug
abuse treatment. Respondent admitted to continued alcohol use and to an attempt to produce a
negative screening result in June 2001. Petitioner presented evidence of continued drug use.
Additionally, respondent failed to obtain suitable housing and had not begun to plan for day care
or to reunite with her other children.
Given the evidence of respondent’s substance abuse history, her continued failure to
substantially comply with the parent/agency agreement and her inability to find suitable housing
or to make efforts to care for the minor child or her remaining children, we find that the trial
1
The father, Eric Rose, voluntarily relinquished his parental rights to the child and is not a party
to this appeal.
-1-
court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were both established by clear and
convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999).
Because only one statutory ground is required to terminate parental rights, In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 350; 612 NW2d 407 (2000), we need not decide whether termination of respondent’s
parental rights was also warranted under § § 19b(3)(j). The evidence did not show that
termination of respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the child's best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5). Trejo, supra, 462 Mich 353-354. Thus the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.