IN RE RUBINO MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JESSICA ROSE RUBINO, RON
THEODORE RUBINO, JR, and JULIONNA
ANGEL RUBINO, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 10, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 263337
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-405146-NA
RONALD THEODORE RUBINO,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MICHELL LYNN WHITE,
Respondent.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Smolenski and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
This appeal is 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
of parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). During the three years of this proceeding,
respondent-appellant complied with many aspects of his parent agency agreement, and the
children were reunited with him for eight or nine months before being removed a second time.
Although respondent-appellant made progress, it was not sufficient to afford the children proper
care and custody and protect them from harm. Respondent-appellant did not rectify the
conditions leading to adjudication. Respondent-appellant’s drug screens were consistently
negative, but he drank to the point of intoxication and the children feared for their physical safety
at those times. He did not successfully address his impulsivity and anger in counseling or
through medication management and, as a result, made poor decisions such as allowing
-1-
undesirable relatives to live in the home with the children. He did not obtain long-term, stable
employment or housing, but remained dependent upon the assistance of others. At the second
time the children were removed, issues of the children’s physical safety, alcohol abuse, domestic
discord, and lack of stable housing were again apparent. Although respondent-appellant’s efforts
at reunification were commendable, there was no reasonable likelihood that he would rectify the
conditions leading to adjudication or provide the children with proper care or custody within a
reasonable time.
Further, the evidence did not show that the children’s best interests precluded termination
of respondent-appellant’s parental rights. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The evidence showed that the children were bonded to respondentappellant and would suffer from the loss of that bond. Although Jessica and Ron expressed a
desire to return to respondent-appellant, they were happy and doing well in placement. In light
of the fact that the children would suffer continual fear, anxiety, and instability in respondentappellant’s care, the trial court did not err in finding that it was not clearly contrary to, but in, the
children’s best interests to offer them the stability afforded by termination of respondentappellant’s parental rights and subsequent adoption.
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.
