IN RE EMMA LETHBRIDGE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of EMMA LETHBRIDGE, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 13, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 284389
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-000149-NA
MATTHEW LETHBRIDGE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JENNIFER COPELAND LETHBRIDGE,
Respondent.
In the Matter of EMMA LETHBRIDGE, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 284390
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-000149-NA
JENNIFER COPELAND LETHBRIDGE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MATTHEW LETHBRIDGE,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Bandstra and Schuette, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right the trial court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) and (l). We
affirm.
Respondents do not contest the establishment of statutory grounds for termination.
Rather, they argue that termination of their parental rights was clearly contrary to Emma's best
interests because of the bond they shared with Emma and their ability to properly care for Emma.
We disagree. The trial court did not clearly err in finding termination not clearly contrary to
Emma's best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353; 612
NW2d 407 (2000).
Respondents have had their parental rights to nine other children terminated. While
respondents say they now accept responsibility, and that the deplorable home conditions and
medical neglect leading to the terminations in 2001 would not recur, the filthy, unsanitary
conditions were again present when Emma was removed in 2005. Further, Dr. James Henry and
Dr. Joshua Ehrlich, two psychologists independently evaluating respondent mother, concluded
that she did not take responsibility for the other children's neglect and would be very unlikely to
change and be able to provide a proper home for Emma. Respondent father argued for custody
on his own, but he had not separated from respondent mother, and his counsel's questions and
argument repeatedly referred to the court allowing respondent mother to continue living in the
home. Respondent mother suffered from serious mental health problems that repeatedly caused
her to become depressed and neglect the children. Respondent father had left the home on
several occasions, and his work history was spotty. He had failed in the past to deliver on
promises to assist respondent mother with keeping the home clean.1 Respondents even missed
their last visit with Emma.
The evidence showed that respondents' bond with Emma was not strong and was marked
by insecure attachment. During Emma's first three years, respondents did not provide a stable
home but moved repeatedly to evade social service agencies. Emma's therapist and other experts
stressed her need for consistency and stability. When the trial court's plan for permanent
guardianship with the foster parents did not work out, the change of goal to termination was the
only viable alternative. The trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights.
1
See In the Matter of Xavier Lethbridge, Minor, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of
Appeals, issued August 19, 2008 (Docket Nos. 283016/283017); In the Matter of Lilith
Lethbridge, Minor, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 24,
2008 (Docket Nos. 278037/278038).
-2-
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/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.
