IN RE CARISSA LHUILLIER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CARISSA LHUILLIER, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 28, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 268112
Jackson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-000156-NA
WENDY LHUILLIER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TIMOTHY LHUILLIER,
Respondent.
Before: White, P.J., and Zahra and Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant 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).
Protective Services had provided services to respondent-appellant and her husband,
respondent Tim Lhuillier (Lhuillier) in 2004 to address domestic violence issues. In February
2005, Protective Services became involved again when, after reporting that Lhuillier had
assaulted her, respondent-appellant sought a personal protection order and reported to a legal
advocate that Lhuillier may have sexually assaulted the minor child. Additionally, respondentappellant appeared to be in pain, incoherent, and unable to care for the children.
Respondent-appellant was ordered by the court to complete a psychological evaluation,
participate in individual therapy to address domestic violence issues, complete parenting classes,
submit random drug screens, undergo an assessment at a pain management clinic and follow any
recommendations, and visit the child.
Respondent-appellant suffered from fibromyalgia, a painful chronic fatigue disease that
she stated caused her severe pain and memory concentration impairment. She took four
-1-
prescription medications, including narcotics, to treat the symptoms of her disease. During the
course of the proceedings, respondent-appellant’s caseworker expressed concerns that
respondent-appellant was abusing narcotics because she often slurred her words and her speech
was incoherent. Respondent-appellant alleged that these conditions resulted from her disease,
not overmedication. However, she refused to show the caseworker her drugs and dosages or sign
a medical release so that petitioner could determine from her drug screens whether the
medication levels were consistent with the prescribed dosages. She submitted very few
requested screens.
Though respondent-appellant had progressed in her counseling, she failed to complete it.
She continued to see Lhuillier despite being advised by the caseworker that she should avoid him
and, as of the date of the termination trial, was living with him, claiming that he had changed.
Respondent-appellant denied making any allegations that Lhuillier had sexually assaulted
Carissa and refused to cooperate in the investigation.
Respondent-appellant’s failure to adequately address the domestic violence issues, her
inability to see the danger presented by Lhuillier, and her refusal to disclose information
regarding her medication all support the trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights
under the three cited statutory grounds. MCR 3.977(G)(3); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondentappellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re
Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the trial court did not err in
terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the child.
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.
