IN RE BOVEE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRANDY BOVEE, NICHOLE
BOVEE, and BENJAMIN BOVEE, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 4, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255624
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-115013-NA
DIANE KIENUTSKE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GORDON BOVEE,
Respondent.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Sawyer and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant 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 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The principal condition that led to adjudication was respondentappellant’s continued drug abuse. Although respondent-appellant completed the required drug
treatment program, she continued to test positive for marijuana even two years after the original
order placing the children under the trial court’s jurisdiction. In addition, respondent-appellant
continued to portray improper behavior at visitation, which hampered the children’s therapy.
Respondent-appellant seemed unwilling to change her inappropriate and destructive behavior for
the sake of her children. The children are now teenagers, and there appears no reasonable
expectation that respondent-appellant will be able to provide the proper care and custody for the
children within a reasonable amount of time.
Next, respondent-appellant argues that she suffers from a disability and that the FIA did
not make sufficient accommodations for her under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 USC
12101 et seq., as required by In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14; 610 NW2d 563 (2000). A
-1-
psychological report indicated that respondent-appellant has an attention span that is in the dull
to normal range and is borderline to mildly retarded. Even if these disabilities do require
accommodations, respondent-appellant did not timely make a claim for accommodations. Under
Terry, a claim for accommodations must be made when a service plan is adopted or soon
thereafter. Id. at 26-27. Here, respondent-appellant did not make an accommodations claim
until the termination trial. Testimony from the caseworkers established that respondent-appellant
never asked for help and never stated that she did not understand a matter. Furthermore, some
accommodations were made for her by the caseworkers involved. Finally, the trial court
correctly determined that respondent-appellant’s limitations would not affect her ability to cease
using drugs, which was the primary reason for termination of her parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
