IN RE DA'QUANTAE DWAYNE HUSSEY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DA’QUANTAE DWAYNE
HUSSEY, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 20, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281158
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000019-NA
WALTER D. THOMAS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LASHIEKA HUSSEY,
Respondent.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Borrello and Gleicher, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent father appeals as of right a circuit court order terminating his parental rights
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) [the parent has deserted the child for 91 or more days];
(c)(i) [the conditions leading to the adjudication continue to exist with no reasonable likelihood
of rectification within a reasonable time given the child’s age]; (c)(ii) [other conditions brought
the child within the court’s jurisdiction, the parent received recommendations to rectify those
conditions but has not done so despite a reasonable opportunity]; and (g) [irrespective of intent,
the parent fails to provide proper care and custody and no reasonable likelihood exists that he
might do so within a reasonable time given the child’s age].1 We affirm, and decide this appeal
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
1
The parental rights of the mother, Lashieka Hussey, were also terminated, but she is not a party
to this appeal. References to “respondent” throughout this opinion are to respondent father only.
-1-
I. Facts and Proceedings
On June 28, 2006, petitioner filed a petition alleging that the mother’s parental rights to
other children had been terminated, her home environment was unfit due to substance abuse, and
the child tested positive for cocaine at birth. The petition asserted that respondent was the minor
child’s “putative father.” The circuit court authorized the petition and removed the child from
his mother’s care. On August 10, 2006, the circuit court conducted a pretrial hearing and
ordered respondent to “resolve paternity,” and to appear at the next hearing with proper
identification.
Respondent established paternity on August 30, 2006. Petitioner filed an amended
petition the next day, alleging as to respondent a lengthy history of substance abuse requiring
treatment, unemployment, inadequate housing, and an inability to meet the child’s financial
needs. At the adjudication hearing conducted on August 31, 2006, respondent admitted the
allegations, and the court exercised temporary jurisdiction over the child. Respondent agreed to
a case service plan requiring him to complete a psychological evaluation and a substance abuse
assessment, attend parenting classes, participate in random urine drug screens, maintain a
“substance free/criminal free lifestyle,” and obtain housing and legal employment.
Respondent failed to appear at a dispositional review hearing conducted on January 5,
2007, and the circuit court noted “little compliance, little benefit” in its dispositional order.
Respondent also did not appear at the next dispositional review hearing, on March 29, 2007.
Foster care worker Julie Griggs related at the hearing that respondent ceased communicating
with her in August 2006, and she did not know where he lived.
The circuit court conducted a permanency planning hearing on June 26, 2007.
Respondent again failed to appear, and the court observed that the notice of hearing mailed to
respondent had been returned. Griggs testified that respondent failed to attend two scheduled
meetings, and failed to participate in or benefit from offered services. The Court ordered
petitioner to file a petition seeking termination of the respondent’s parental rights. On July 27,
2007, petitioner filed a supplemental petition alleging that respondent had admitted to a long
history of substance abuse needing treatment, an inability to provide housing for the child, failed
to comply with the case service plan and to maintain contact with the caseworker, and had never
visited with the child.
Respondent attended and participated in the termination trial conducted on September 27,
2007. Griggs testified that respondent had failed to comply with any aspect of the case service
plan and never engaged in parenting time with his son. She described five meetings with
respondent in July and August 2006, and respondent’s failure to contact her again until April
2007. Griggs testified that when respondent contacted her in April 2007, she scheduled two
meetings at his request, but he failed to attend either of them.
Respondent acknowledged his failure to comply with the case services plan, and admitted
to being unemployed and homeless. He explained that he left Michigan in August 2006 to care
for his sick brother in Illinois, and could not return until April 2007. Respondent acknowledged
that it might require a year for him to obtain housing and employment, and to complete parenting
classes.
-2-
The circuit court terminated respondent’s parental rights, noting that respondent had
offered “no explanation that is viable for his failure to participate in services or to visit his son.”
The court observed that despite respondent’s promises when the case commenced, he did
“nothing” to fulfill his parental obligations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court
terminated respondent’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), and
(g). The circuit court declared that it “cannot find that it’s clearly not in the child’s best interest
that termination be had.” Respondent now appeals as of right.
II. Issues Presented and Analysis
Respondent contends that insufficient evidence supported the circuit court’s decision to
terminate his parental rights on any statutory ground. This Court reviews for clear error a circuit
court’s finding that a ground for termination has been established by clear and convincing
evidence “and, where appropriate, the court’s decision regarding the child’s best interest.” In re
Fried, 266 Mich App 535, 541; 702 NW2d 192 (2005) (internal quotation omitted); see also
MCR 3.977(J). Clear error exists when some evidence supports a finding, but a review of the
entire record leaves the reviewing court with the definite and firm conviction that the lower court
made a mistake. In re Conley, 216 Mich App 41, 42; 549 NW2d 353 (1996). A circuit court’s
finding of one statutory ground is sufficient to terminate parental rights. In re Powers, 244 Mich
App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472 (2000).
Clear and convincing evidence supported the circuit court’s reliance on MCL
712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) as a ground for terminating respondent’s parental rights. Respondent never
visited with the minor child, made no effort to provide his son with support, and failed to call or
correspond with the child’s caseworker between August 2006 and April 2007. These facts
clearly and convincingly establish that respondent deserted the minor child for more than 91 days
and did not seek custody during that period.
Furthermore, clear and convincing evidence also supported the circuit court’s finding that
the conditions leading to the adjudication continued to exist without reasonable likelihood of
correction within a reasonable time. The conditions that led to the adjudication included
respondent’s substance abuse, unemployment, and inadequate housing. Additional concerns
arose during the case, including respondent’s failure to comply with any aspect of the case
service plan, and his apparent lack of interest in visiting the child. At the time of the termination
hearing, respondent remained unemployed and homeless, had never visited his son, and admitted
that he would not be in a position to care for the child at any time in the foreseeable future. The
circuit court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights pursuant to subsection (c)(i).
On the basis of the same clear and convincing evidence, the circuit court properly
terminated respondent’s parental rights pursuant to subsection (g), correctly concluding that,
without regard to intent, he failed to provide proper care and custody for the child, and that no
reasonable expectation existed that he could do so within a reasonable time, considering the
child’s young age.
In light of our finding of clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination of
respondent’s parental rights on three grounds, we need not address whether the circuit court
-3-
erred in finding an additional ground for termination in subsection (c)(ii). In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 360; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
-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.
