IN RE DAVIDSON MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of J.L.D. and D.M.D., Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED April 22, 2003 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 242497 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 01-400435 KATHLEEN NANCY DAVIDSON, Respondent-Appellant, and JAMES MCDONALD DAVIDSON, a/k/a JAMES MCDONALD DAVIDSON, III, Respondent. Before: Meter, P.J., and Cavanagh and Cooper, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. See MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent-appellant is a drug user who admits to having neglected the children. For several months after the children were removed from her care, respondent-appellant failed to address any aspect of the parent-agency agreement. At the time of termination, respondent-appellant was only beginning to address her substance abuse and there was no indication that she would ever be able to provide the children with adequate housing or parenting. In sum, there was no evidence to suggest that respondent-appellant was any more able to care for the children at the time of termination than she was at the time that the children were removed from the home. Further, the evidence failed to show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the best interests of the children. See MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, -1- 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The numerous procedural challenges raised by respondent-appellant are similarly without merit. Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children. Affirmed. /s/ Patrick M. Meter /s/ Mark J. Cavanagh /s/ Jessica R. Cooper -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.