IN RE EMANUEL MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALISSA EMANUEL and
CHANCE SKYLER EMANUEL, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 29, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 260465
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2004-000047-NA
CYNTHIA MILLS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
HARLON EMANUEL,
Respondent.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Jansen and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Cynthia Mills appeals as of right from the order terminating her parental
rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), and (g). We affirm.
We review for clear error the trial court’s determination that petitioner established the
existence of one or more statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.
MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999).
Respondent argues that the trial court placed an overly stringent requirement upon her
when it required her to provide a negative drug screen the mornings of her scheduled parenting
time. Respondent contends that, given her severe problem with drug abuse, such a requirement
effectively precluded her from attending visitations with her children and that it would have been
better for the trial court to have required her not to be under the influence of drugs before her
visitations, rather than drug-free. Respondent’s argument ignores the clear language of MCL
712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), which does not limit its review to a parent’s record of visitations but, instead,
evaluates a parent’s general attempts to seek custody. In its bench opinion, the trial court looked
not just to the missed visitations, but also respondent’s other lack of contact with the FIA and/or
the children. Furthermore, the trial court’s requirement that respondent test negative before
-1-
visitations was very reasonable, especially in light of the evidence that respondent had a serious
drug problem.
Respondent concedes that the conditions in issue obtained at the time of the termination
trial and that she had failed to provide proper care of the children in the past within the meanings
of MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). Yet, she claims that, since she had just recently stopped
using drugs, there was a reasonable likelihood that she would be able to benefit from services, fix
her problems, and provide appropriate care, all within a reasonable time. However, the evidence
showed that respondent had been free from drugs for just over one month after a drying-out
period spent in jail. There was no evidence of respondent’s ability to benefit from services
because she always failed to avail herself of these services. Therefore, the trial court did not err
in basing termination upon these statutory grounds.
Finally, a review of the whole record shows that respondent subjected the minor children
to a home environment in which drug use was prevalent, domestic violence was all too common,
and educational neglect was ongoing. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that
termination of respondent’s parental rights was not contrary to the children’s best interests.
MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-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.
