IN RE THOMAS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AUTUMN MAY THOMAS and
LANCE SIDNEY THOMAS, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
October 18, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 276418
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-433538-NA
LISA MARIE THOMAS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
NICHOLAS ANDREW THOMAS
Respondent.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Smolenski and Schuette, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Lisa Thomas1 appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). Because we find no
error warranting relief, we affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination of
respondent’s parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J);
In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
The present case arose after complaints that respondent and her husband were neglecting
their children. In response to the complaints, a caseworker visited respondent’s home. The
children were found to be dirty, unkempt and with bruises and abrasions. The caseworker also
described the home as so unsanitary as to pose a danger to the children. After the children were
removed, respondent received services designed to improve her skills as a caregiver. In addition,
1
In this opinion, we shall use respondent to refer solely to respondent-appellant Lisa Thomas.
-1-
the plan called for respondent to obtain mental health services related to her bi-polar disorder and
consistently use her medication. Respondent was also required to obtain stable housing.
There was evidence that respondent participated in these services. However, there was
also significant testimony that, notwithstanding her participation, respondent did not benefit from
the services provided to her. Testimony indicated that respondent continued to show an inability
to supervise and parent her children during visits. Respondent ignored her children during the
visits so she could converse with adults. Indeed, the other adults often had to intervene in order
to protect the children from dangerous situations or redirect inappropriate behavior. There was
also testimony that respondent came to the visits wearing dirty clothing and had poor hygiene.
Therefore, we cannot conclude that the trial court clearly erred when it concluded that
respondent had not benefited from her participation in the services. In re Gazella, 264 Mich App
668, 676-677; 692 NW2d 708 (2005) (noting that a parent must not only participate in the
services provided under the plan, but also benefit from them).
In addition, although respondent testified that she was taking her medications, there was
compelling testimony that contradicted her testimony. Respondent actually told a caseworker
and mental health professionals that she enjoyed the manic phases of her illness and that she did
not think that she needed to be on medication. Based on this evidence, the trial court concluded
that respondent was not “vested” in addressing her mental health issues and found that she was
not consistently taking her medications.
Finally, there was evidence that respondent was not in a position to provide stable
housing for the children. Respondent had moved from home to home during the two years that
services were provided. Moreover, although respondent had entered into a lease by the time of
the trial, respondent could not afford to maintain the home on her social security income.
Respondent admitted as much when she stated that she was relying on her ex-boyfriend to pay
her utilities.
Based on this evidence, the trial court did not clearly err when it concluded that
respondent had not benefited from the parenting services provided to her, had not complied with
the requirement that she stay on her medications and had not obtained suitable housing.
Respondent’s failure to comply with the requirements of the plan is evidence of her failure to
provide proper care and custody. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 360-363; 612 NW2d 407
(2000). Given respondent’s lack of progress over the period within which she was provided with
services, the trial court also did not clearly err when it found that there was no reasonable
expectation that respondent would be able to provide proper care and custody to the children
within a reasonable time considering the young age of the children. MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).
Because the trial court properly found that at least one statutory ground for termination of
respondent’s parental rights existed, it was required to terminate respondent’s parental rights to
the minor children unless it found that termination was clearly not in the best interests of the
children. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 354. After finding that there were statutory
grounds for termination, the trial court found that “termination” was “clearly not contrary to the
-2-
children’s best interests.” On review of the entire record, we cannot conclude that this finding
was clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Bill Schuette
-3-
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.
