IN RE LADLEY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of A.L. and J.L., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 26, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 239433
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000200-NA
VERONICA KITTELL,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Saad and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).1 We affirm. This appeal is being decided without
oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
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 the trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established by clear
and convincing evidence the existence of a statutory ground for termination of respondent’s
parental rights. Respondent partially complied with the parent-agency agreement, but made
virtually no progress in counseling and failed to secure suitable, independent housing.
Respondent remained unable to make independent decisions, notwithstanding the fact that she
was afforded an extended period of time in which to develop that skill. The trial court’s finding
1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of non-participating respondent Craig
Ladley, the children’s father. Ladley has not appealed the order.
-1-
that respondent’s inability to make decisions regarding her own life rendered her incapable of
caring for two very young children was not clearly erroneous. Sours, supra. The trial court did
not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was warranted on the
ground that respondent failed to provide proper care or custody for the children and could not be
expected to do so within a reasonable time. MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). 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.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
