IN RE HALEY MARIE LAUNDRY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of HALEY MARIE LAUNDRY,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 12, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 271202
Chippewa Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-012728-NA
LEDEAN LAUNDRY,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Meter, P.J., and O’Connell and Davis, 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)(g), (i), 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 at least one of the statutory grounds for
termination of respondent’s parental rights was established by clear and convincing evidence.
MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). It based its decision on
evidence admitted in a prior case terminating respondent’s parental rights and on evidence of
respondent’s actions since that termination.
Respondent’s parental rights to Haley’s half sister, Erin, were terminated in April 2003
due to serious and chronic neglect. Erin entered foster care severely delayed and undersocialized due to respondent’s parenting, and the evidence in that case clearly established that
respondent was unable to adequately care for a child and refused to comply with reunification
services. When Haley was born in January 2006, she was removed from respondent at birth.
The evidence showed that, since the time of the prior termination, respondent did not address the
issues that prevented her from properly parenting a child, resisted offers of assistance by Adult
Protective Services and Early Head Start, and made no progress toward becoming a suitable
parent, with the exception of maintaining stable housing for six months.
Haley was removed from respondent at birth, and the evidence did not support
termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). However, evidence of the prior termination and
respondent’s demonstrated resistance to rehabilitation services did support termination under
-1-
MCL 712A.19b(3)(i), and the evidence that Haley would suffer harm in respondent’s care, as
had Erin, supported termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j).
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly contrary to the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The trial court did not err in going one step further and finding that
termination was in Haley’s best interests. Haley was not bonded to respondent and required
proper nurture, which respondent was not able to provide.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-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.
