IN RE BRYAN BISHOP MULLEN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRYAN BISHOP MULLEN,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 21, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 269386
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-432565-NA
AUDREY E. MULLEN,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: White, P.J., and Zahra and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to
the minor child 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 finding that the statutory grounds for termination of
respondent’s parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J);
In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337, 344-345; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The primary condition of
adjudication was respondent’s mental illness, which caused her homelessness, erratic and
unpredictable behavior, and inability to independently provide Bryan with proper care, custody
and safety. More than 182 days elapsed between the initial disposition and the termination
hearing. Clear and convincing evidence showed that respondent had a continuing mental illness
that would not be remedied within a reasonable time, that she resided with her mother, Sharon
Green, in a loosely structured environment, and that even with psychiatric monitoring she had
not become able to care for Bryan. Respondent had not executed releases for her Sinai Grace
psychiatrist’s records, but the evidence showed that her behavior remained unpredictable even
when compliant with psychiatric services. Although respondent’s medication had been adjusted
a few months before the termination hearing, given the severe nature of respondent’s mental
illness there was no reasonable likelihood that it would be rectified or sufficiently mitigated to
allow her to safely parent Bryan within a reasonable time.
Green desired to care for both respondent and Bryan. Green’s situation was difficult and
her dedication to her family was commendable, but clear and convincing evidence showed that
-1-
Green was not able to provide proper custody for Bryan within a reasonable time, either by
means of a guardianship or adoption, because over the course of this twenty-month proceeding
she refused to remove respondent from her home, was unable to ensure respondent’s compliance
with medication, was unable to prevent respondent’s access to Bryan, and did not fully
appreciate the harm that contact with respondent could cause Bryan. Bryan would likely suffer
harm through contact with respondent if returned to Green’s care.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly contrary to Bryan’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Bryan was unable to safely return to Green’s or respondent’s care
within a reasonable time, and termination of respondent’s parental rights and the opportunity to
enter a permanent adoptive home was not clearly contrary to his best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
