IN RE ANTHONY MARQUESE BUSH JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ANTHONY MARQUESE BUSH,
JR., Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 19, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 270234
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-436517-NA
ANTHONY BUSH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
VELEIR J. LEWIS,
Respondent.
Before: Meter, P.J., and O’Connell and Davis, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding clear and convincing evidence to support the
statutory grounds for termination. MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d
520 1205 (1999); In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 672; 692 NW2d 708 (2005). The minor
child tested positive for cocaine at his birth and, at the age of two months, was left with
respondent-appellant’s grandmother, who could not handle the child’s care, while respondentappellant was on a crack binge. Seventeen months after the child was placed in foster care, the
conditions that led to the adjudication continued to exist. Respondent-appellant had never
provided proper care and custody for his child and there was no reasonable likelihood that he
would be able to do so within a reasonable time considering the child’s age. Based on
respondent-appellant’s history of drug abuse, his noncompliance with his treatment plan during
this case, and his physical condition, there was a reasonable likelihood that the child would be
harmed if placed in respondent-appellant’s care. It was unfortunate that respondent-appellant
was shot in his leg during the pendency of this case. However, the trial court was not required to
give him further additional time because he was injured. As the Court stated in In re Terry, 240
-1-
Mich App 14, 28; 610 NW2d 563 (2002), “If a parent cannot or will not meet [his or] her
irreducible minimum parental responsibilities, the needs of the child must prevail over the needs
of the parent.” The trial court did not err in finding that the statutory grounds had been
established.
There was also no evidence in the record to show that termination was clearly not in the
child’s best interest. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in the best
interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354-355; 612 NW2d 407
(2000).
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.
