IN RE BRADLEY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JA RI BRADLEY and JUSTICE
BRADLEY, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
February 26, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 286621
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-451709
RITA KING,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JAMES EARL BRADLEY,
Respondent.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Beckering, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Rita King appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) (failure to prevent
sexual abuse of a sibling), (c)(i) (condition that led to adjudication continued), (g) (failure to
provide proper care and custody) and (j) (harmed if returned to the parent). Because the trial
court did not clearly err in concluding that the allegations of abuse were proved by clear and
convincing evidence and that termination of parental rights was not against the best interests of
the children, we affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err when it concluded that there was clear and convincing
evidence to establish the statutory grounds for termination of respondent’s parental rights. MCR
3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent has given
birth to eight children. Only her parental rights to her two youngest daughters are at issue in this
appeal. However, events involving her oldest daughter, Kinita, brought all of the children into
care. The evidence conclusively established that respondent’s husband, James Bradley, Sr., the
child’s stepfather, sexually abused Kinita. As a result of this abuse, Kinita gave birth to two
children, approximately 11 months apart, before she was 16 years old. Further, there was
evidence that respondent had the opportunity to prevent the abuse but failed to do so. The trial
-1-
court rejected respondent’s contention that she was unaware of the abuse because there was
persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Respondent was provided with services to assist her in her reunification efforts. Despite
her participation in these services, respondent continued to lack insight into the needs of her
children. At the time of the children’s removal, Bradley fled the house and was a fugitive for 18
months. When he was finally apprehended, Bradley was found in respondent’s home. Further,
the evidence confirmed that, while Bradley was on the run, he and respondent maintained a
relationship despite respondent being ordered by the court to have no contact with her daughter’s
abuser. It is unfathomable that respondent would continue a relationship with somebody who
harmed her child in the manner described. Consequently, it was apparent that respondent, at the
time of termination, still could not protect her children from risk of harm. Further, there was no
indication that respondent would gain the insight necessary to properly and safely parent her
children within a reasonable time.
Perhaps more troubling, and further evidence that respondent lacked insight into the
needs of her children, was respondent’s response to her daughter’s abuse. At no time did
respondent express any empathy or sympathy toward her victimized daughter. Respondent
continued to blame Kinita, a victim, for the sexual abuse by an adult. Indeed, respondent never
really understood that her daughter was molested. She continued to perceive the sexual abuse as
a consensual act, and she continually expressed her sense that Kinita had betrayed her.
Respondent’s interpretation of the events illustrated that she did not truly understand the
capacities of a child and that child’s need to be protected from manipulative adults.
Respondent’s conduct and mindset confirm that she was unable to appreciate risks of harm to her
children.
Respondent argues that the risk of harm to her children has been eliminated because
Bradley was ultimately sentenced to a term of 17 to 40 years’ imprisonment. This simplistic
analysis completely ignores that respondent clearly lacks the ability to perceive potential risks to
her children. Respondent has a history of engaging in relationships with men of questionable
character. Consequently, it is likely that she would, in keeping with past practices, bring men
into the home that present a risk of harm to her daughters if they were returned. Because she is
not capable of appreciating these risks, she would likely fail to protect them from harm if they
were placed in her care. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly
err when it terminated respondent’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i),
(g), and (j).
Finally, there was no evidence that, despite the grounds for termination, termination of
parental rights would not be in the children’s best interests. Indeed, the evidence clearly
demonstrated that respondent’s youngest daughters would be at risk if returned to her care.
Despite the existence of a bond between respondent and her children, it was clear that respondent
was not committed to the children or willing to act in their best interests. Respondent’s love for
her children apparently was not greater than her need to harbor her daughter’s sexual abuser.
Justice and Ja Ri were both under the age of eight. At this age, they are still young enough to
-2-
benefit from a permanent, safe, and stable home that would foster their continued growth and
development.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
-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.
