IN RE DEREESE LEU'SERGO JACKSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DEREESE LEU’SERGO
JACKSON, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 24, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 252469
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-028300-NA
AMBER ROSE WIELAND,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DEREESE LOUIS JACKSON,
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)(b)(i), (b)(ii), and (j). We affirm.
This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Initially, respondent-appellant challenges the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction
based on the injuries to Dereese’s sibling, Curry Martin, while in respondents’ care. We find no
error. The doctrine of anticipatory neglect is appropriately applied to the jurisdictional phase of
child protective proceedings. In re Powers, 208 Mich App 582, 588-589; 528 NW2d 799
(1995); In re Dittrick, 80 Mich App 219, 222-223; 263 NW2d 37 (1977). The trial court
thoroughly reviewed the evidence and considered the arguments of respondent-appellant’s
attorney in its findings regarding the jurisdictional issue.
Further, the trial court did not clearly err in finding the statutory grounds for termination
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353;
612 NW2d 407 (2000); Powers, supra, 208 Mich App 588-594. Dereese’s then two-year-old
sibling, Curry, was severely burned while under respondents’ care. The parents’ explanations
-1-
were inconsistent, respondent-appellant was not candid regarding the timing of the injuries, and
respondent-appellant clearly failed to obtain timely medical treatment for Curry. Instead, she
waited several days and then took Curry and an older sibling to Kentucky. She did not take
Curry to the hospital because she feared that he would be removed and she would be arrested.
As the trial court observed, there is a substantial likelihood of similar occurrences with Dereese,
who is approaching the age Curry was when injured.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in Dereese’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra, 462 Mich
356-357. Although respondent-appellant did inquire about Dereese’s welfare while in foster
care, she missed court hearings and several appointments and did not demonstrate that she could
follow through in attempting to reunite with Dereese. Dereese was only one month old when
removed from respondent-appellant’s care. Given these facts, the injury to Curry, and
respondent-appellant’s behavior after the injury, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that
termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was not clearly contrary to Dereese’s best
interests.
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.
