IN RE ALYSSA JORDAN FREESLAND MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALYSSA JORDAN FREESLAND,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 9, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 244161
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-351996
KIMBERLY RUBY FREESLAND,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RONALD BUZAR,
Respondent.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Jansen and Fort Hood, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant Kimberly Ruby Freesland appeals as of right from the trial court
order terminating her parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (i),
and (j). We affirm.
This Court reviews a decision to terminate parental rights under the clearly erroneous
standard. MCR 5.974(I), In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). A
finding is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, this Court is left with a
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209-210;
661 NW2d 216 (2003). To be clearly erroneous, a decision must be more than maybe or
probably wrong. Sours, supra. Further, regard is to be given to the special opportunity of the
trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it. MCR 2.613(C); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
Respondent-appellant had an extensive history with petitioner, Family Independence
Agency and her parental rights to three older children were terminated for drug use and
abandoning the children. There was conflicting evidence presented in the proceedings for this
-1-
child regarding whether respondent-appellant had successfully addressed her problem with drug
use and her positive drug screens were the result of prescription drugs taken to ease her seizure
disorder or whether she was still using drugs. Nonetheless, in reviewing this evidence, we give
regard to the lower court’s special opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses who
appeared before it. MCR 2.613(C); Miller, supra at 337. The lower court did not clearly err in
finding that § 19b(3)(i) and (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR
3.974(J); Miller, supra at 337. Although it is not clear that § 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were
established, any error is harmless given that other statutory grounds for termination of
respondent-appellant’s parental rights existed. In re Powers Minors, 244 Mich App 111, 118;
624 NW2d 472 (2000).
Respondent-appellant next contends that the court erred as the parental termination was
not clearly in the best interest of the child. Upon a review of the entire record, although there is
evidence to support respondent-appellant’s position, we are not left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made in finding that the termination was clearly in the child’s
best interest. See MCL 712.A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407
(2000); MCR 5.974(I); Sours, supra at 633. The lower court found that respondent-appellant
was deceptive, has not remained drug free, and has not done other things expected for the child
to be returned to her home, such as her failure to complete parenting classes. In particular, the
lower court noted that the most important factor was that respondent-appellant had not
completed a drug treatment program and had not been drug free. Although there is evidence to
support respondent-appellant had given the child some good care, a decision of the trial court
must be more then maybe or probably wrong. See Sours, supra. There was evidence to support
that lower court’s termination of parental rights, namely, the positive drug test. Giving regard to
the lower court’s opportunity to assess witness credibility, we find that the trial court did not
clearly err in finding that terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights was in the best
interest of the child. See MCL 7.12.A.19b (5); Trejo, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
