IN RE OLIVIA DRAPER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of OLIVIA DRAPER, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 23, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 286131
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-000100-NA
JENNIFER ZELMER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHARLES DRAPER,
Respondent.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Jennifer Zelmer appeals by right from a circuit court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(G); In re Archer, 277 Mich App
71, 73; 744 NW2d 1 (2007). Respondent had a serious drug abuse problem that led to an older
child’s becoming a court ward in 2004. Respondent continued to use drugs, and the child in this
case tested positive for cocaine at birth. Respondent made little effort to comply with the service
plan until December 2007, but she then abandoned all efforts to comply with services by midMarch 2008.
Petitioner was not required to prove that respondent would neglect her child for the longterm future as held in Fritts v Krugh, 354 Mich 97, 114; 92 NW2d 604 (1958), overruled on
other grounds by In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 444; 505 NW2d 834 (1993). Fritts predates the
enactment of § 19b(3), which now sets forth the criteria for termination.
Further, the evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was not in the child’s best interests. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000);
-1-
MCL 712A.19b(5). Because she only attended visits sporadically, respondent never developed a
lasting bond with the child. In fact, it was apparent at the last visit in January 2008 that the child
no longer recognized respondent. Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent’s parental rights to the child. In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
We affirm.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
