IN RE KEIAMBE DENISE HOPSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KEIAMBE DENISE HOPSON,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 22, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 243952
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-379196
STANLEY HOPSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PAULINE ALFRED-HOPSON,
Respondent.
In the Matter of KEIAMBE DENISE HOPSON,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 244317
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-379196
PAULINE ALFRED-HOPSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
STANLEY HOPSON,
-1-
Respondent.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Talbot and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
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. This case is being
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);1 In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The conditions that led to adjudication were respondent-father’s
physical mistreatment of the child and alcohol abuse and respondent-mother’s failure to protect
her child from the risk of abuse. Respondents refused to participate in and/or benefit from the
services offered. As a result, the conditions that led to adjudication continued to exist at the time
of termination and there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions would be rectified
within a reasonable time. Moreover, the alcohol abuse, physical mistreatment, minimization of
the effects of abuse, and lack of insight into the reasons that brought the child into care precluded
respondents from providing proper care and custody of the child. Accordingly, the court did not
err in finding that a statutory basis for termination of respondents’ parental rights had been
established.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents’ parental rights was
clearly not in the child best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357;
612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental
rights to their child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Donald S. Owens
1
Effective May 1, 2003, the court rules governing proceedings regarding juveniles were amended and moved to the
new MCR subchapter 3.900. The provisions on termination of parental rights are now found in MCR 3.977.
Specifically, the court rule governing the standard of review is found at MCR 3.977(J). In this opinion, we refer to
the rules in effect at the time of the order terminating parental rights.
-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.
