IN RE JUSTIN MARK TY THOMPSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of HAILEE RUTH ANN KOTEWA
and JUSTIN MARK TY THOMPSON, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 6, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 285418
Bay Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-009483-NA
MANDY CRAMER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JON KOTEWA and TOMMY THOMPSON,
Respondents.
In the Matter of JUSTIN MARK TY
THOMPSON, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
No. 285679
Bay Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-009483-NA
v
TOMMY THOMPSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MANDY CRAMER,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Beckering, P.J., and Borrello and Davis, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order
terminating their parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). For the reasons
set forth below, we affirm. These appeals have been decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
To terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory
grounds for termination set forth in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been met by clear and convincing
evidence. In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 632-633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). If a statutory ground for
termination is established, the trial court must terminate parental rights unless there exists clear
evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The trial court’s
decision terminating parental rights is reviewed for clear error. MCR 3.977(J); Trejo, supra at
355-357; Sours, supra at 632-633. A finding is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence
to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 455
NW2d 161 (1989). Regard is to be given to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the
credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it. MCR 2.613(C); Miller, supra at 337.
The trial court did not err when it terminated respondent-mother’s parental rights under
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) because her drug use, which led to the adjudication, continued to exist at
the time of the permanent custody hearing. Respondent-mother did not fully commit herself to
treatment until after the children were again removed from her care in December 2007 following
a relapse. By the time of the permanent custody hearing in April 2008, respondent-mother had
not demonstrated a sustained period of a drug-free lifestyle. Given that drug rehabilitation is a
lifelong process for individuals with extensive drug use history like respondent-mother’s, and
that she relapsed as recently as December 2007, there is no evidence that she would be able to
rectify her drug use within a reasonable time.
Further, although respondent-mother claims she was fully committed to family
reunification, her decision to jeopardize her own treatment by allowing respondent-father to stay
in her apartment at the treatment facility suggests she was not as committed to changing her
lifestyle and focusing on her children’s return as she states. Likewise, because honesty is a
major component of the rehabilitation process, respondent-mother’s dishonesty throughout the
case demonstrates her lack of commitment to family reunification. Respondent-mother was not
forthcoming with the foster care worker about her use of Oxycontin or alcohol. She did not tell
those in charge of her drug treatment program that she had previously been addicted to
methadone and let them consider treating her with it. She lied about respondent-father’s
presence in her apartment and harbored him for two weeks in violation of the treatment
program’s rules. Respondent-mother has been driving without a valid driver’s license and
violated the court’s order prohibiting contact with respondent-father. Respondent-mother also
told Hailee to lie about the movies she let the child view.
-2-
Under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), respondent-mother is unable to provide proper care and
custody for the children because she has not been able to demonstrate that she can maintain a
drug-free lifestyle. She cannot provide proper care for Hailee and Justin while she is using drugs
or relapsing. And, although respondent-mother was employed and had a two-bedroom
apartment, this housing came to her through her drug treatment provider. Throughout the case,
she relied on them for support and never demonstrated an ability to obtain and maintain
independent housing and childcare.
Finally, termination of parental rights was proper under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). Until
respondent-mother has demonstrated that she can maintain a drug-free lifestyle, she poses a risk
of harm to the children. The safety concerns created by respondent-mother’s drug use and
impaired judgment were evidenced in Hailee’s reports of how she had to hold Justin’s head
above water when respondent-mother left them alone in a filling bathtub. On another occasion,
while driving back to Port Huron, respondent-mother was falling asleep and Hailee had to keep
throwing water on her face to keep her awake. Respondent-mother blamed her sleepiness on
medication she had taken.
The court also did not err when it terminated respondent-father’s parental rights under
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) because at the beginning of the case he had substance abuse problems
and has not entered treatment to address his drug use. There is no evidence that respondentfather has overcome his drug addiction and changed his lifestyle. Respondent-father’s March
2008 psychological evaluation indicated that he began smoking marijuana at age twelve and
using cocaine at age thirteen. He used daily until December 2007. He has had only brief periods
of abstinence from drugs. Respondent-father remains at high risk for relapse and does not have
his substance abuse problem under control.
Termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was also proper under MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(g). Respondent-father has not provided proper care or custody and has not
presented himself as a person who is able to provide a custodial arrangement for Justin. There is
no evidence that respondent-father is employed or has suitable housing in which to care for a
young child. As his psychological evaluation notes, his overall parenting skills are inadequate
due to chronic antisocial behaviors and persistent substance abuse.
Finally, termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was proper under MCL
712A.19b(3)(j) because his drug use presents a dangerous environment for a young child. The
way he and respondent-mother lived with drug needles in full view of the children is not a safe
environment. There is no evidence that he has made changes to this harmful lifestyle.
Respondent-father argues that upon his release from jail he called the foster care worker
and made a legitimate effort to pursue a treatment plan but was never provided an opportunity to
participate in services. He argues that he demonstrated the initiative to complete a psychological
evaluation and also attempted to participate in the phone system for random drug testing. Where
the case proceeds under an original petition for termination of parental rights, petitioner is not
required to provide a treatment plan nor are reasonable efforts required for reunification. MCL
712A.19b(5); MCR 3.977(E). Respondent-father was unavailable to work on his treatment plan
throughout most of the case due to his own criminal involvement. Although he demonstrated
some interest by contacting the foster care worker upon his release from jail, he made excuses
-3-
regarding his ability to participate in the random drug screens by phone and never demonstrated
that he had overcome his extensive drug addiction.
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination of the parental rights
of both respondents was not contrary to the best interests of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5).
Respondent-mother argues that termination of her parental rights is contrary to Hailee’s and
Justin’s best interests because she participated in services and benefited from the treatment plan.
It is necessary but not sufficient to physically comply with the terms of the treatment plan. In re
Gazella, 264 Mich app 668, 676; 692 NW2d 708 (2005). The record does not show that
respondent-mother can safely care for Hailee and Justin or that she is able to demonstrate proper
judgment and live a drug-free lifestyle.
Respondent-mother argues that she is bonded to her children. However, it takes more
than a bond between parent and child for the court to find that termination of parental rights is
clearly contrary to the children’s best interest. Respondent-mother could not demonstrate that
she could put her children’s needs before her own to overcome her drug problem. The record
shows that Hailee and Justin needed permanence. The uncertainty of respondent-mother’s
situation caused instability for both children and caused Hailee emotional distress.
There is also no evidence on the record that termination of respondent-father’s parental
rights was clearly contrary to Justin’s best interests. There was no evidence of a bond between
respondent-father and Justin. Respondent-father argues that the court was unwilling to wait
another six to nine months to gauge his success in addressing his problems. However, the court
had already given him fifteen months to address the issues that brought his family to the court’s
attention. The court was unwilling to give him additional time because this additional time was
causing instability and emotional angst for Justin and was contrary to his best interests. The best
interests of Justin were served by a speedy resolution of the case so he could have permanence
and stability.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Alton Davis
-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.
