IN RE TARA LIEFFERS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TARA LIEFFERS, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 16, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 249048
Newaygo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-005326-NA
SARAH ACKER,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Neff and White, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent 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), and (i).1 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 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The same trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights to
another child, Randy, Jr., one month after the birth of this child, Tara. Although given an
opportunity to properly provide for Tara, respondent failed to participate in services designed to
assist her in breaking her pattern of dependence and poor relationships. During the four-year
course of prior child protective proceedings and this proceeding, respondent received referrals to
many services but failed to become self-sufficient and able to provide proper care or custody for
Tara. Respondent was unable to provide proper necessities for Tara, or a residence, for any
length of time, even with assistance from various agencies, and allowed her residences to
deteriorate into a nearly uninhabitable condition. Respondent continued her relationship with her
abusive partner.
1
While respondent additionally asserts that the trial court terminated her parental rights under
MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), there is no indication that the trial court considered or relied upon that
subsection. It is inapplicable in this case, because respondent pursued custody of the minor child
throughout this proceeding.
-1-
Additionally, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was clearly not in Tara’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357;
612 NW2d 407 (2000).2 In this case, although respondent and Tara were presumably bonded,
the evidence showed that respondent was unable to provide for Tara’s basic needs and would not
be able to do so within a reasonable time. The trial court did not err in determining that the
evidence did not show that termination was clearly contrary to Tara’s best interests.
Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the minor
child.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Helene N. White
2
We note that respondent states the wrong standard on appeal. The trial court does not have
discretion in terminating parental rights once the statutory grounds are established but is
mandated to terminate parental rights unless the evidence shows that termination is clearly
against the child’s best interests. In re Trejo, supra at 353.
-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.
