IN RE MAY/HAWKS/RIDGEWAY MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of RACHEL MAY, RYAN MAY, GARY HAWKS, KAITLYN HAWKS, EMILY HAWKS, JIMMY HAWKS, HAILEY MORGAN RIDGEWAY, and MIKAYLA RIDGEWAY, Minors. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, UNPUBLISHED November 16, 2006 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 270855 Sanilac Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 04-034554-NA REBECCA JEAN REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellant. Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Sawyer and Jansen, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent appeals as of right from the circuit court’s order terminating her parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). 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 Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 351; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). The evidence clearly and convincing showed that respondent continued to place her personal desires above her children’s needs for safety and stability. The court obtained jurisdiction over the children because respondent failed to protect the children from an abusive boyfriend. Earlier, respondent was involved with a man who sexually abused at least one of her children. While this case was pending, respondent left her children with inappropriate caregivers so that she could be with her new boyfriend, and then subsequently took six of the children out of state, without petitioner’s knowledge or the court’s approval, so they could meet her new boyfriend, whom she had met on the Internet. Although services were provided, respondent failed to benefit from those services and continued to ignore the needs of her children in order to advance her own desires and relationships with men. Similarly, the trial court did not clearly err in its determination that termination of respondent’s parental rights was not clearly contrary to the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 351. The older children no longer trusted respondent and the -1- younger ones showed signs of anxiety and insecurity. All of the older children were in need of counseling services because of issues involving abuse and neglect. Although a family counselor opined that termination of respondent’s parental rights would be contrary to the best interests of some of the children, he was unaware of significant aspects of the case. The trial court did not clearly err in discrediting his testimony for this reason and in concluding, on the whole record, that termination was not clearly contrary to the children’s best interests. Id. Affirmed. /s/ William C. Whitbeck /s/ David H. Sawyer /s/ Kathleen Jansen -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.