IN RE MELINA DAWN QUICK MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of M.D.Q., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 24, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 240627
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-392673
KATHLEEN CHILDERS EVERETT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JAMES QUICK,
Respondent.
In the Matter of M.D.Q., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 240897
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-392673
JAMES QUICK,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KATHLEEN CHILDERS EVERETT,
Respondent.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Wilder and Schuette, 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. These appeals are being decided without oral argument. MCR 7.214(E).
In Docket No. 240627, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory
grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, 459
Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). The evidence showed that respondent mother had a
chronic mental illness, continued to abuse crack cocaine, continued to display inappropriate
parenting during supervised parenting time, and remained in an abusive relationship with the
child’s father. Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent mother’s
parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 356; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The child had been in foster care all but three weeks of
her young life and respondent mother made virtually no progress in rectifying the serious issues
that brought the child into care. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent
mother’s parental rights to the child.
In Docket No. 240897, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory
grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, supra at
633. The evidence established that respondent father had a chronic mental illness, continued to
abuse drugs, did not address his domestic violence issues, and displayed inappropriate parenting
during supervised parenting time. With respect to the best interests issue, respondent father’s
argument that the trial court should be reversed because it failed to find that termination of
parental rights was in the child’s best interests is without merit. The statute does not require that
the trial court affirmatively find that termination is in the child’s best interests. In re Trejo,
supra at 357. The statute only provides that if grounds for termination are found by the court,
parental rights may be terminated, unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the
child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). In this case, the evidence did not show that
termination of respondent father’s parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests.
MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 356. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent father’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.
