IN RE HUGHES/YOUNGBLOOD-JACKSON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MARSHAWN TRAYVON
EUGENE HUGHES and AMARIA ALICIA
YOUNGBLOOD-JACKSON, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 15, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 279006
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-066337-NA
MARCIENA GREEN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOSEPH E. HUGHES,
Respondent.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Cavanagh and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant, Marciena Green, claims an appeal from the trial court’s order
terminating her parental rights to her minor children, pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i),
(g), and (j). We affirm.
There was clear and convincing evidence to support termination of respondentappellant’s parental rights pursuant to § § 19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (g), and (j). MCR 3.977; In re
Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The children came into care after their
two-month-old sibling, Aushonae, died while sleeping in a bed with respondent-appellant and
Marshawn. The medical examiner concluded that the infant died from unsafe sleeping practices.
Although Aushonae had several medical issues, including problems breathing, respondentappellant did not take her to scheduled doctor appointments. When the children were removed
from respondent-appellant’s care, it was apparent that they had been subjected to physical and
medical neglect. Investigators found old food and bottles left lying around and a soiled mattress.
Marshawn, then aged three, was 20 to 30 pounds overweight. Neither child had received
adequate medical care, and they both were developmentally delayed. Respondent-appellant was
-1-
offered a multitude of services. She had an extensive history of abusing marijuana as well as
prescription medications. For six months after drug testing began, respondent-appellant tested
positive for illicit drugs every time, and afterward she would sporadically test positive for drugs.
For nearly a year, respondent-appellant did not comply in any meaningful way with the treatment
plan. Then, after respondent-appellant learned that termination was the permanency plan, she
began to make progress toward reunification. Despite complying with several aspects of the
treatment plan, respondent-appellant never adequately addressed her substance abuse issues.
Testimony established that it would be at least another six months before respondent-appellant
was in a position to move toward parenting her children again. Therefore, the trial court did not
clearly err when it terminated respondent-appellant’s rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i),
(c)(i), (g), and (j).
Nor did the evidence show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was
clearly contrary to the children’s best interests. In re Trejo, supra at 353-354. Although there
was testimony that a bond existed between respondent-appellant and her children, this bond had
clearly been altered by the extensive time the children had spent in foster care. Because
respondent-appellant never sufficiently addressed her substance abuse issues, the children would
continue to be at risk for suffering harm if returned to respondent-appellant’s care.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
