IN RE HACKNEY-JACKSON/HACKNEY/AUSTIN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ARIANNA JANISSA
HACKNEY-JACKSON, AKAYLA ANNETTE
HACKNEY, AHNYSTI LEEANA AUSTIN, and
DESTINY LEAH AUSTIN, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 5, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 290573
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC Nos. 07-054409-NA;
07-054410-NA;
07-054412-NA;
07-051218-NA
QUEENA MONIQUE HACKNEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
WILLIE JAY JACKSON and MONTOYO
MCKINNEY,
Respondents.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Wilder and MJ Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Queena Hackney appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating
her parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We
affirm.
We review for clear error both the trial court’s findings that a statutory ground for
termination was proven by clear and convincing evidence, and its findings regarding the
children’s best interests. MCR 3.977(J); In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209; 661 NW2d 216 (2003).
Although the evidence indicates that one child’s special medical needs present a
significant challenge that does not exist for the other children, the conditions that led to the
adjudication centered on respondent’s failure to take the child to medical clinics for treatment, as
well as unstable housing and substance abuse involving marijuana. The trial court appropriately
apprised itself of the circumstances surrounding these conditions in concluding that §
19b(3)(c)(i) was proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 26;
-1-
501 NW2d 182 (1993). Considering the evidence that respondent continued to have problems
attending medical appointments for the children, was unable to move beyond transitional
housing provided by Hope Community, and turned to alcohol before relapsing into marijuana
use, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the conditions that led to the adjudication
continued to exist, and that there was no reasonable likelihood that they would be rectified within
a reasonable time considering the children’s ages.
In addition, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j) were also
each proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court found that respondent had not
benefited from the services provided to her, and that she did not presently have the resources to
even care for herself. Further, she had not been honest with caseworkers who were attempting to
support her efforts to reunite with the children, and her social support system during the
proceedings included a relationship with a person who had assaulted her. A parent must benefit
from services sufficient to enable a court to find that the children will not longer be at risk of
harm. In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 676-677; 692 NW2d 708 (2005). The same evidence
that supports the trial court’s finding that § 19b(3)(c)(i) was proven also supports its findings that
termination was appropriate under §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j).
Further, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re JK, supra at 209.
The court reasonably concluded that respondent’s undisputed love for the children was not
enough to safely parent them. The behavioral problems that arose after the oldest child and two
of her siblings were removed from respondent’s care and placed in foster homes does not
provide a basis for disturbing the trial court’s finding.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-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.
