IN RE SHAYLEONA KIDDER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of S.K., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 18, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 244738
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-003582-NA
EDITH KIDDER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DON BLOXSON,
Respondent.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Neff and Gage, 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) and (g).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. at 356-357.
1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of respondent Don Bloxson, the
putative father of S.K. Bloxson has not appealed the order.
-1-
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established by clear and
convincing evidence the existence of one or more statutory grounds for the termination of
respondent’s parental rights. The child was removed from respondent’s custody because
respondent failed to provide proper care and custody. Respondent made some attempt to comply
with the parent-agency agreement by obtaining employment and housing. She participated in
counseling in which parenting skills were discussed. However, respondent’s counselor opined
that respondent continued to be immature and had not benefited from the counseling and
estimated that at a minimum respondent would need services for another year before she could
be an appropriate parent to the child. Respondent’s foster care worker agreed with the
counselor’s assessment.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental
rights was warranted on the grounds that the conditions that led to adjudication continued to exist
and were unlikely to be rectified within a reasonable time considering the child’s age, MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i), and that respondent failed to provide proper care or custody for the child and
there was no reasonable expectation that she would be able to do so within a reasonable time
considering the child’s age, MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). The evidence did not establish that
termination of respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
