IN RE DAVID ALAN ROCHA III MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DAVID ALAN ROCHA III,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 14, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 269830
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-387096-NA
DAVID ROCHA,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
NATALIE MARIE GONZALES,
Respondent.
In the Matter of DAVID ALAN ROCHA III,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 269831
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-387096-NA
NATALIE MARIE GONZALES,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID ROCHA,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Owens, P.J., and White and Hoekstra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (i), and (j).
We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination of
respondents’ parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J);
In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondents’ parental rights to two
other children had been terminated by the trial court pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (j),
and (k)(iii) on April 15, 2002. Respondent mother appealed that termination order, but it was
affirmed by this Court.1
The two children who were the subject of the prior termination proceeding tested positive
for cocaine at birth, and both suffered serious, permanent damage as a result of respondent
mother’s neglect and substance abuse. Although substance abuse was a primary issue to be
rectified during the prior proceeding, respondent mother failed to submit random drug and
alcohol screens on the correct dates, and untruthfully asserted that she was substance-free and no
longer in a relationship with respondent father. Respondent father did not make efforts toward
reunification. In terminating respondents’ parental right to those children, the trial court noted
respondent mother’s lack of credibility during the proceeding, as did this Court in affirming that
termination order.
David, the minor child who is the subject of this proceeding, was born two years after the
prior termination, and petitioner requested termination of respondents’ parental rights at the
initial disposition. Respondents insisted that they had matured, turned their lives around and no
longer abused substances, and provided several negative screens by the time of the November
2004 initial disposition, thus convincing the trial court to take temporary custody of David and
order reunification services instead of immediately terminating their parental rights. A month
later, David was diagnosed with a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum disorder, static encephalopathy
alcohol exposed, and respondent mother eventually admitted that she had consumed alcohol four
months into her pregnancy, claiming that she didn’t realize that she was pregnant.
More than 182 days elapsed between the November 17, 2004 initial disposition and the
March 22, 2006 termination hearing. Respondents had not been rehabilitated during the prior
proceeding, and the primary condition leading to adjudication in David’s case was anticipated
future neglect due to the unrectified substance abuse and lack of proper care and supervision that
lead to the prior termination of respondents’ parental rights.
1
In re Rocha, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued September 18,
2003 (Docket No. 241747).
-2-
Although respondents provided consistently negative screens and complied with many
services during the entire year 2005, respondent mother submitted only 19 of 49 screens on the
correct dates, and respondent father submitted only 16 of 52 screens on the correct dates.
Despite this, the foster care caseworker recommended reunification, but the trial court limited
contact to overnight visits. A few short months later, the caseworker recommended termination
because respondents provided David with less than adequate care during overnight visits, and reevaluation of his medical condition showed that David would be mentally retarded, exhibit
bizarre and unpredictable behaviors, suffer motor deficits and sensory problems, and require
numerous services. He would never live independently and required strong and consistent
parenting and intrinsically motivated, competent caretakers who would advocate for services on
his behalf.
The evidence showed that respondents genuinely desired to care for David, but did not
demonstrate that they were able to do so, or rectify the condition of substance abuse by
demonstrating that they were substance-free. Just five months before David’s birth, respondent
mother was using alcohol heavily enough to create David’s serious disability, although she
denied doing so for the first several months of this proceeding. The evidence was clear that she
had failed to provide David with proper care in utero. Given her deceit in the prior termination
proceeding, and her untruthfulness about drinking while pregnant with David for the first several
months of this proceeding, the trial court was correct in questioning respondents’ claims of a
complete change in lifestyle. During the entire proceeding, neither respondent submitted a
significant number of random screens on correct dates.
In addition, the evidence showed that respondents lacked the capacity to provide David
with the extraordinary care his special needs required, and that there was no reasonable
expectation that they would be able to do so within a reasonable time. Despite completion of
two sets of parenting classes, they provided him with less than adequate care during overnight
visits. They were unable to attend their own random screens on the scheduled dates, and would
be unable to adequately advocate for David and attend his numerous appointments on the proper
dates. David was likely to be harmed in respondents’ care by their failure to effectively address
his special needs.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly contrary to David’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondents had not demonstrated that they were substance-free or
able to meet David’s needs. David was removed at two months of age, and no evidence was
presented that severing the parent-child relationship would cause him harm.
Lastly, the trial court did not err in finding that the agency made reasonable efforts
toward reunification. The agency provided referrals for drug screens and parenting classes,
inspected respondents’ apartments, and supervised visits with David. Termination was the result
of respondents’ failure to provide screens on the proper dates and demonstrate significant
improvement since the prior termination and not due to the extent of the agency’s services.
-3-
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
I concur in result only.
/s/ Helene N. White
-4-
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.
