IN RE MITCHELL MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CODIE LEE MITCHELL and
JAIDE ASIA’ANN MITCHELL, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 26, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 243091
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-360149
DAWN LYNN MITCHELL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANTHONY JOSEPH ESSA,
Respondent.
In the Matter of CODIE LEE MITCHELL and
JAIDE ASIA’ANN MITCHELL, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 243116
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-360149
ANTHONY JOSEPH ESSA,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAWN LYNN MITCHELL,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Meter and Schuette, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order terminating their parental rights
to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (i), and (j). We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(A) and (E)(1)(b).
The trial court did not err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). However, no evidence was presented regarding MCL 712A.19b(3)(i),
and the trial court should not have relied on that subsection as a basis for termination. The
evidence showed that respondents had abused drugs for many years, and that respondent father
had been jailed for domestic violence against respondent mother several times over the years.
Since 1997, services provided in prior child protective proceedings or as conditions of probation
had not remedied respondents’ drug abuse and violence issues. Respondents were also unable to
rectify these issues during the course of this proceeding, and it was clear that they would not be
able to provide proper care or custody of the children within a reasonable time and that the
children would be harmed if returned to their care.
Further, clear and convincing evidence showed that petitioner made reasonable attempts
to reunify the family. In re Miller, supra. The evidence did not support respondents’ claims that
petitioner inadequately serviced them or that the services provided were ineffective and
inadequate. Respondents, although not suffering from physical or mental impairment, needed
help in rectifying their issues, but had received services in the past to no avail and did not put
forth sufficient effort to participate in services during the current proceeding. No one was able to
make respondents appropriate parents except respondents themselves.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting respondents’ drug screen reports
without allowing respondent mother an opportunity to cross-examine the preparer. MCR
3.977(G)(2). Admission of evidence is within the trial court’s discretion. People v Smith, 456
Mich 543, 549-550; 581 NW2d 654 (1998). The report had little probative value in light of
respondent mother’s testimony at the termination hearing that she still used cocaine, and the
preparer was not readily available for cross examination. Therefore, the trial court properly
admitted the report.
Finally, respondents both requested judicial review of the referee’s recommendation that
their parental rights be terminated. Judicial review was not conducted on the specific grounds
raised by respondents in their motions for review because the termination order had already been
signed by a substituting judge prior to respondents filing their motions. MCR 5.991. However,
review of the issues raised by respondents in their motions was effectuated by this appeal, and
remand on this ground is not warranted.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/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.
