IN RE BAKELEY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CARLTON ANDREW
BAKELEY, ANNETTE MARIA BAKELEY II,
and MORDECAI JORDDAN BAKELEY, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 30, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 268397
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-412276-NA
ANNETTE MARIE BAKELEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CARLTON FOSTER,
Respondent.
Before: White, P.J. and Zahra and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Appellant appeals of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights under
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. We decide this case without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding the statutory grounds for termination proven
by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J). The condition leading to adjudication was
housing. When the children were taken into the court’s temporary custody, the home in which
they lived was in deplorable condition, there was virtually no food in the house, and the children
were filthy. During the three years this case was pending, appellant was evicted from five homes
for nonpayment of rent and did not maintain any home for a significant amount of time.
Although appellant had suitable housing at the time of trial, she had not maintained that housing
for a significant amount of time considering her history of instable housing. There was no
reasonable likelihood that appellant could provide for her children within a reasonable time
where she could not maintain stable housing and did not finish ordered counseling, despite
having three years to do so. Appellant’s lack of motivation to complete her parent-agency
-1-
service plan over an extended period of time evidenced an inability to provide appropriate care
for her children. MCL 712A.19(3)(g).
We also find that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was not
contrary to the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). Although the children and appellant
were well bonded, too much time had passed without appellant making adequate progress for the
return of the children. Three years was too long for these children to be in foster care and, even
at the time of trial, appellant was not ready for the return of her children. The trial court did not
err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights.
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.
