IN RE THOMAS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MARLON A. THOMAS,
MEISHAN T. THOMAS, McKENSIE T.
THOMAS, REAGEN S. THOMAS, RYAN G.
THOMAS, and JALEN THOMAS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 4, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 247162
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-653218
AMY THOMAS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARION THOMAS,
Respondent.
Before: Murray, P.J. and Gage and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to
the minor children under 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. MCR 5.974(I)1, In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The evidence established that respondent was unable to stabilize
her schizophrenia or rectify her cocaine use during the eighteen-month duration of these
1
Effective May 1, 2003, the court rules governing proceedings regarding juveniles were amended
and moved to new MCR subchapter 3.900. The provisions of MCR 5.974(I) are now found in
MCR 3.977(J). In this opinion, we refer to the rules in effect at the time of the order terminating
parental rights.
-1-
proceedings. Although respondent did participate in drug treatment programs, and began the
counseling and close monitoring required for her mental health condition, she continually quit
programs, and did not consistently follow through to the point where she had stabilized, was
drug-free, and could regain custody of the children. Since respondent made little progress
toward addressing her mental health and substance abuse issues in eighteen months, it was clear
that the conditions leading to adjudication would not be rectified, and that respondent would not
be able to provide proper care or custody for the children, within a reasonable time.
Furthermore, there was a likelihood that the children would be harmed if returned to respondent
because she remained in the same position she was in when the children were removed from her
care.
Additionally, the trial court did not err in finding that termination of respondentappellant’s parental rights was not contrary to the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5);
In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The children’s behavioral
difficulties necessitated competent parenting. The evidence showed that the children could not
be returned to respondent and were doing well in foster care. The trial court did not err in
terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
