IN RE EDWARDS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LEONARD JULIUS COCHRAN,
JR., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 25, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 245241
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-377741
LEONARD COCHRAN, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
FELICIA LATONIA EDWARDS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of CORNELIUS CORTEZ
EDWARDS and TERRANCE LONZELL
EDWARDS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 245245
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-377741
FELICIA LATONIA EDWARDS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BILLY ALEXANDER and DOUQUAN BLUNT,
-1-
Respondents.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Markey and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In Docket No. 245241, respondent Leonard Cochran, Sr., appeals as of right from the
order terminating his parental rights to his child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). In Docket
No. 245245, respondent Felicia Edwards appeals as of right from the order terminating her
parental rights to her two older children under MCL 712A.19b(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We
affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding clear and convincing evidence to establish the
statutory grounds for termination. MCR 5.974(I), now MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). In Docket No. 245245, the principal conditions leading to
adjudication were respondent Edwards’ drug abuse and lack of suitable housing and
employment. The evidence showed that respondent Edwards failed to complete outpatient drug
treatment and failed to turn in drug screens consistently. She did not visit with Cornelius and
Tarrance for over a year, and her housing situation was not shown to be stable or adequate for
the children. We find the evidence sufficient to establish MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).
In Docket No. 245241, we do not find clear error in the trial court’s termination of
respondent Cochran’s parental rights under subsections (3)(g) and (j). Respondent Cochran
accidentally killed a younger child by rolling over on him in bed. Leonard, Jr., then aged two,
was sleeping on the couch downstairs when this occurred. A parent’s treatment of one child may
be considering in deciding whether to terminate parental rights as to another child. In re AH, 245
Mich App 77, 84; 627 NW2d 33 (2001). Respondent Cochran’s alcoholism, anger problems,
and lack of suitable housing, as well as the death of Leandre, all support the trial court’s ruling as
to subsections (g) and (j).
Further, the evidence failed to show that termination of respondents’ parental rights was
clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 356-357. In
Docket No. 245245, the two children were bonded with and loved their mother, yet the evidence
showed their concern over her welfare and their placement was affecting their well-being during
the several-year history of the case. In Docket No. 245241, respondent Cochran was bonded
with Leonard, Jr., but the father’s ability to provide a stable, secure environment was in serious
question. We do not find clear error in the trial court’s determination on the best interests issue.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
