IN RE EASON/GRIGGS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DEVEIRE GRIGGS, KEASIA
EASON, and KAMRON EASON, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 14, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255831
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-269800-NA
DEVEIRE GRIGGS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CANDACE EASON-GRIGGS and JOSEPH
HODGES,
Respondents.
In the Matter of KEASIA EASON, KAMRON
EASON, and DEVEIRE GRIGGS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 256294
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-269800-NA
CANDACE EASON-GRIGGS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOSEPH HODGES and DEVEIRE GRIGGS,
Respondents.
-1-
Before: Markey, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Owens, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent Griggs appeals as of right the trial court order
terminating his parental rights to his minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g), and
respondent Eason-Griggs appeals by delayed leave granted the same order terminating her
parental rights to all three minor children pursuant to the same statutory sections. We affirm.
These appeals are being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re McIntyre, 192 Mich
App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1993). The family came to the attention of protective services after
a drug raid on respondent Eason-Griggs’ home. The minor children were in the home at the time
and were exposed to smoke and had access to drug paraphernalia. Respondent Eason-Griggs
later pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver cocaine. Over the course of the year after
the adjudication hearing, respondents consistently did not return drug screens that were sent to
them, had positive drug screens, and had positive hair follicle tests. The court consistently
impressed upon respondents that they needed to show the court that they could parent the minor
children in a drug free lifestyle and that they could prove this by returning negative drug screens
on time. While there were areas of the parent/agency agreement in which respondents made
progress, they did not demonstrate that they were addressing their substance abuse, which was
the primary condition that led to adjudication.
Respondent Griggs argues that petitioner did not provide reasonable efforts to assist him
in reuniting with the minor children because he was twice incarcerated on drug charges during
the course of the proceedings and petitioner did not provide him with any services while he was
incarcerated. However, two agencies referred by petitioner either met with respondent Griggs, or
agreed to meet with him, while he was incarcerated to help him with his substance abuse issues.
After he was released from jail, respondent Griggs did not return drug screens that were sent to
him, had a positive hair follicle test, and associated with individuals known to be involved with
drugs and was found at a known drug house. The court did not clearly err in determining that
petitioner provided reasonable efforts to rectify the conditions relating to respondent Griggs that
brought the minor children into care.
With regard to respondent Griggs’ argument that he should have been appointed an
attorney earlier in the proceedings so that he could complete the requirements of his
parent/agency agreement, the record reveals that respondent Griggs was personally served with a
notice of hearing regarding the contested adjudication. The notice advised him of his right to be
represented by an attorney and stated that, if he was financially unable to employ an attorney, he
must notify the court immediately upon receipt of the notice. Nothing in the record indicates that
respondent Griggs requested an attorney at an earlier date or that one was not appointed for him
upon request. With regard to respondent Griggs’ argument that he should have been given more
time because he did not receive services while he was incarcerated, this argument would be more
compelling if respondent had returned the drug screens provided on time and was not found
associating with individuals involved with illegal drugs. The court did not clearly err in not
-2-
providing respondent Griggs with additional time to complete the requirements of his
parent/agency agreement.
Respondent Eason-Griggs argues that the court clearly erred because she substantially
complied with all aspects of the parent/agency agreement, maintained a strong bond with the
minor children, and the evidence did not support a finding that she continued with marijuana use.
However, respondent Eason-Griggs failed to return many of the drugs screens required of her
and had positive screens among the tests she did return. At the time of the termination hearing,
her substance abuse, which was the primary condition of adjudication, remained a significant
issue. Her bond with the minor children did not outweigh her inability to address her substance
abuse.
The record before this Court does not support respondent Eason-Griggs’ argument that
her counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge the validity of the hair follicle
tests. In addition to positive hair follicle tests, respondent had positive urine screens, did not
return most of the screens provided to her, and was stopped by police officers on two occasions
in the company of individuals engaged in drug activities.
The court did not clearly err in finding that MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were
established by clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, the evidence did not clearly show
that it is not in the minor children’s best interests to terminate respondents’ parental rights. MCL
712A.19b(5).
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-3-
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.