IN RE THOMAS GARY HOWLEY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of THOMAS GARY HOWLEY,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
September 10, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
REBECCA ADRIANNA WARREN and JOHN
ROBERT HOWLEY,
No. 290718
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2008-000023-NA
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: M. J. Kelly, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Shapiro, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from a circuit court order terminating their parental rights
to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). Because we conclude that
there were no errors warranting relief, we affirm. We have decided this appeal without oral
argument under MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) were each
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(G)(3); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Both parents have serious problems with substance abuse, which
they are unwilling or unable to overcome. Respondent Warren continued to abuse drugs despite
suffering a life-threatening overdose. Respondent Howley continued to abuse drugs and was
later sentenced to 18 months to 10 years in prison for manufacturing methamphetamines.
Because grounds for termination were established under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j), any error in
relying on § 19b(3)(a)(ii) was harmless. In re Powers, 244 Mich App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472
(2000). Further, the evidence on the whole record showed that termination of respondents’
parental rights was in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). Therefore, the trial court did
not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child. In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
We also reject respondents’ claim that the trial court erred by failing to consider the
maternal grandparents’ request for guardianship. Respondent Warren’s counsel advised the
court that Warren’s mother wanted to adopt the child, “not do a guardianship.” Respondent
Howley’s counsel similarly requested that the court “place the child right now with the
grandmother, today, and that it be for adoption.” The record is abundantly clear that the request
-1-
was not for guardianship, but for adoption—a process that was outside the realm of the hearing.
Because guardianship was not a contested issue, the court was not required to consider that issue.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
-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.
