IN RE WARREN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JALON JOHN WARREN,
DAVON LON WARREN, TAKIVA ESTEE
DUBOSE, and FELICIA MARIE DUBOSE,
Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 21, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 268652
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-676823-NA
ROXANNE DUBOSE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LON HOWARD WARREN,
Respondent.
In the Matter of JALON JOHN WARREN and
DAVON LON WARREN, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 268653
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-676823-NA
LON HOWARD WARREN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ROXANNE DUBOSE,
-1-
Respondent.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Hoekstra and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the two orders that
terminated respondent-mother’s parental rights to Takiva, Felicia, Jalon, and Davon, and
respondent-father’s parental rights to Jalon and Davon, pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). We
affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds had been
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). With respect to respondent-mother, the evidence provided clear and
convincing proof that she had a pattern of denying or minimizing the serious issues in her life.
For example, respondent-mother was required to attend counseling sessions as part of the parentagency agreement (“PAA”). Although she cancelled or failed to show for many appointments,
she did attend some sessions with therapist Valerie Guyton. Guyton testified that respondentmother denied any issues with domestic violence. As another example, respondent-mother
testified that the day she was taken to the hospital for a drug overdose1 was the first time she had
ingested cocaine. This pattern of denial and minimization created the reasonable likelihood that
the dangerous problems of drug use and domestic violence that existed in her life would
continue. Therefore, respondent-mother’s conduct created the reasonable likelihood that the
children would be at risk of harm if returned to respondent-mother’s home.
With respect to respondent-father, giving deference to the trial court’s opportunity to
assess a witness’s credibility, this Court concludes that the trial court did not clearly err.
Respondent-father’s failure to abide by the court order to stay away from respondent-mother
demonstrated his willingness to ignore or deny the domestic violence problems that existed in his
relationship with respondent-mother. These problems were serious, as proven by his criminal
record. Respondent-father also failed to comply with the PAA with respect to drug screening.
After testing positive for cocaine on August 25, 2005, September 23, 2005, September 27, 2005,
and October 9, 2005 (those four screens were re-tested and the results were still positive),
respondent-father failed to submit any more drug screens after October 9, 2005. Because of
respondent-father’s conduct and apparent capacity to ignore or deny significant and dangerous
issues, Jalon and Davon would be at risk of harm if placed in respondent-father’s home.
1
Notably, the ambulance was called at the request of respondent-mother’s twelve-year-old
daughter, who found her mother passed out and breathing abnormally, and was understandably
concerned. Respondent-father was sleeping next to respondent-mother at the time, in violation
of the court’s order to stay away from respondent-mother. According to the FIA, the two
younger children, Jalon (d/o/b 3/6/02) and Davon (d/o/b 5/30/04), were found naked and without
diapers at the time of this incident.
-2-
Respondent-mother argues that she substantially complied with the PAA. While it is true
that respondent-mother did some work on the PAA, the evidence clearly and convincingly
showed that she had not completed any of its requirements. Respondent-mother also complains
about the lack of specificity in the PAA and in the counseling treatment plan. However, the
worker from the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) explained that petitioner’s practice
was not to specify a number of times a person had to attend counseling; rather, that decision was
left to the therapist. Respondent-mother’s alleged need for specificity just underscores the fact
that she minimized the problems in her life since the DHS or the counselor could not be expected
to know the exact number of sessions that are needed to address serious problems like domestic
violence or drug use. Lastly, respondent-mother argues that the DHS did not make reasonable
efforts to reunite the family, and that respondent-mother’s efforts were made more challenging
by first the absence of, and then a multiplicity of, caseworkers. However, even though there
were various caseworkers throughout this case, the evidence clearly and convincingly showed
that services were available to respondent-mother, and it was her failure to utilize those services
that led to the court’s decision to terminate her parental rights.
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err in its determination regarding the children’s best
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 353. The evidence presented at the best interests
hearing clearly and convincingly showed that respondents’ lives had deteriorated since the
termination trial. Although there would likely be negative emotional repercussions on the
children from the termination of respondents’ parental rights, especially teenagers Takiva and
Felicia, it would be far worse to place the children in a deteriorating situation that now included
not just drug use and possible domestic violence, but also criminal activity and a lack of
adequate housing.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
