IN RE COLLINS/VANDEE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SAMANTHA JO COLLINS and
TONY VANDEE, JR., Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 10, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 263175
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-001973-NA
BOBBI JO COLLINS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TONY VANDEE,
Respondent.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Smolenski and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to 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). The conditions leading to
adjudication were respondent-appellant’s incarceration, substance abuse, lack of housing, poor
parenting skills, and domestic violence. Respondent-appellant was not jailed again throughout
the pendency of the case and her parenting skills were greatly improved. However, after twenty
months, the issues of substance abuse, housing, and domestic violence remained.
Regarding substance abuse, respondent-appellant performed some drug screens as
required but did not complete all drug screens and had some positive screens and many diluted
screens. She did not complete a substance abuse treatment program and continued to use
substances. From January 28, 2005, to April 1, 2005, respondent-appellant did not perform any
drug screens, did not participate in any substance abuse treatment, and did not attend counseling.
Regarding domestic violence issues, respondent-appellant made some progress by divorcing
respondent father, who was abusing her, but she moved in again with him after the divorce and,
-1-
as recently as February 25, 2005, there was evidence of continued abuse. Regarding housing,
respondent-appellant did not have stable housing throughout the case and did not ever have
employment or other financial means to support herself and the children. While respondentappellant attempted to make some last minute effort to show progress in this case, the conditions
of adjudication continued to exist at the time of trial. Further, the foster care worker’s
assessment that respondent-appellant had periods of good compliance and then periods of no
compliance was supported by respondent-appellant’s record and showed that respondentappellant would not be able to rectify the conditions and provide proper care and custody for the
children within a reasonable time when she was not able to do so within twenty months.
Furthermore, the trial court did not clearly err in its best interests determination. MCR
712A.19b(5). Considering respondent-appellant’s history of chronic substance abuse and
inability to provide appropriate housing, as well as the evidence showing no real bond between
her and the children, the evidence did not show that the children’s best interests precluded
termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
