IN RE FOSTER/FOSTER-BUTLER/BUTLER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of J.A.F., W.L.F., C.W.F.-B. and,
D.E.M.B., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 4, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238780
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-373733
JOY MONIFA FLEMING,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RICHARD VAUGHN and DAMON BUTLER,
Respondents.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Bandstra and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm. This
appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Despite nearly three years of services, which included parenting
classes, individual therapy and group counseling, respondent-appellant continued to rationalize
the physical abuse of her children as an appropriate form of discipline. Further, the evidence
established that respondent-appellant would not adequately address the child abuse issues in a
reasonable period because she lacked the internal motivation to change. Given this evidence, we
find that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were both
established by clear and convincing evidence.
Further, because at least one ground for termination was established, the trial court was
required to terminate respondent-appellant’s parental rights unless it found that termination was
-1-
clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 364365; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s
parental rights to her children.
Affirmed.
Jessica R. Cooper
Richard A. Bandstra
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.
