IN RE KAIJAH MOORE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KAIJAH MOORE, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 22, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252745
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-261501-NA
JODI MOORE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JEFFREY FLEEMAN,
Respondent.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Gage and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
Respondent-appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the
statutory grounds for termination of her parental rights. She argues, instead, that termination of
her parental rights was not in the best interests of the child. We disagree.
The minor child was brought under the court’s jurisdiction after she sustained injuries at
the age of five months during a domestic violence incident between her parents. Respondentappellant made little progress in her major goals of overcoming her problems with domestic
violence and substance abuse. She was discharged from both anger management classes and
individual counseling for lack of attendance. She missed drug screens, tested positive for
cocaine and marijuana, and failed to participate in an ordered relapse program. Respondentappellant also failed to complete a domestic relations class, maintained a volatile off-and-on
relationship with the child’s father, and failed to maintain either legal employment or a stable
residence.
The evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was
clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341,
-1-
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The child was young and needed a stable home environment,
which respondent-appellant was unable to provide. The evidence indicated that, although the
child tolerated visits with respondent-appellant, there was no evidence that a bond existed
between the two. When respondent-appellant’s parental rights were terminated, the child was
thriving in the home of her paternal aunt, who was seeking to adopt her. Therefore, the trial
court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to her child.
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.
