IN RE MELODY ROSE PAUL MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MELODY ROSE PAUL, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 20, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 286593
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 08-051134-NA
AMY BETH PAUL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID McINTOSH,
Respondent.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Bandstra and Gleicher, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-mother appeals as of right from the order terminating her parental rights to
the minor child in accordance with MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (j), and (l). We affirm. This appeal
has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in ordering the termination of respondent’s parental
rights based on its determination that at least one statutory ground for termination was
established by clear and convincing evidence and that termination served the minor child’s best
interests. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); MCL 712A.19b(5)1;
MCR 3.977(J).
1
MCL 712A.19b(5) has been amended, effective July 11, 2008, to require that the trial court
make an affirmative finding that termination of a parent’s parental rights is in the best interest of
the child. 2008 PA 199. The amended statute does not affect the instant case because the
termination order was entered on June 17, 2008.
-1-
Respondent contends that she made substantial progress on her goals and the trial court
erred in finding that MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j) had been established. However, she does not
challenge the trial court’s finding that her parental rights to another child were previously
involuntarily terminated, and that termination of her rights to the minor child at issue here was
therefore appropriate under MCL 712A.19b(3)(l). Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in
finding that a statutory ground for termination had been established. In re Powers, 244 Mich
App 111, 119; 624 NW2d 472 (2000). Moreover, while respondent submitted urine screens, was
employed, and attended counseling sessions during the case involving her older children, she
continued to have a relationship with a known drug user, David McIntosh, despite the court’s nocontact order, and did not demonstrate an ability to financially support herself or her child. This
evidence also supported the trial court’s determination that MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j) had
been established.
Finally, respondent contends that the trial court erred in determining that it was in the
child’s best interests to terminate her parental rights. MCL 712A.19b(5). Respondent asserts
that she was able to provide her child with a home. However, the caseworker testified that
respondent was not self-sufficient as she had not been responsible for payment of rent or any of
her bills. Further, respondent was provided a substantial period of time to work on her treatment
plan but failed to successfully reduce the barriers to secure reunification with her child. Given
respondent’s extended history with child protective services and her failure to successfully
complete the treatment plan, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was in the minor child’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
-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.
