IN RE ALEXUS DESYLVIA TAYLOR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALEXUS DESYLVIA TAYLOR,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 10, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 251560
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 94-322716
LILLIAN VANIECE TOWNSEND,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LLOYD ERWIN TAYLOR,
Respondent.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Gage and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals 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 case is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(A) and (E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR
3.977(J); In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1993). The conditions that led
to adjudication were respondent-appellant’s history of drug abuse, the prior termination of her
parental rights to four other children, and her lack of stable, suitable housing. In the more than
two years the current case was pending, respondent-appellant was not consistent in complying
with her parent-agency agreement, continued abusing cocaine and alcohol, had not provided
proof of legal employment or income, and still had not established stable housing.
Overwhelming evidence established the statutory bases for termination of respondent-appellant’s
parental rights.
Furthermore, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s
parental rights was contrary to the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors,
-1-
462 Mich 341, 353, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although respondent-appellant visited
with the child and was appropriate during visitation, there did not appear to be a parent-child
bond. Moreover, the minor child came into the trial court’s custody shortly after her birth and
remained there for more than two years, while respondent-appellant made minimal progress on
her treatment goals. It was not intended that children be left indefinitely in foster care. The
minor child deserves stability and permanency in her life.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
