IN RE STEPHEN JAMES LESLIE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of STEPHEN JAMES LESLIE,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 29, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 286897
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2006-000567-NA
GARY LESLIE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination had
been established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612
NW2d 407 (2000); In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). The issues the
led to adjudication included domestic violence between respondent and the child’s mother and
alcohol abuse. During the time that the minor child had been a temporary ward of the court, the
police had been called to respondent’s home on six different occasions, and respondent was
incarcerated on three occasions relating to domestic violence. In each instance, drinking was
involved. The latest incarceration occurred almost a year and a half after the minor child had
been removed from the home and resulted from respondent’s guilty plea to domestic violence.
He also admitted that he had been drinking at that time. Respondent did not comply with any of
the weekly random screens required by the parent agency agreement or the hair follicle tests
ordered by the trial court. While he did engage in individual therapy for a period of time, he was
discharged for noncompliance. Respondent completed parenting classes, a psychological
assessment, and an assessment by the CARE program, but he was unable to show that he
benefited from any of these services. Respondent’s testimony showed that he did not understand
the developmental abilities of the two-year-old minor child or how to appropriately care for a
young child. He admitted that he would be unable to care for the minor child without the
assistance of his brother and sister-in-law.
-1-
The court also did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental
rights was in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MCR 3.977(J). The trial court
acknowledged that respondent loved the minor child. However, he was in and out of jail for
domestic violence with the minor child’s mother and continued to abuse alcohol during the year
and a half that the minor child had been a temporary ward of the court. The minor child would
continue to be at risk of emotional and physical harm in respondent’s custody. The child
deserved a stable environment in which to grow up, which respondent admitted he could not
independently provide.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
