IN RE RMR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of RMR, Minor.
CHAD ELLIS ROGERS and LYNN J. ROGERS,
UNPUBLISHED
December 22, 2009
Petitioners-Appellees,
v
No. 292707
Jackson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 09-006509-AY
BONNIE JEAN TALLEY,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Murphy, C.J., and Jansen and Zahra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from an order terminating her parental rights to the minor
child pursuant to MCL 710.51(6). We affirm.
MCL 710.51(6) provides:
If the parents of a child are divorced, or if the parents are unmarried but
the father has acknowledged paternity or is a putative father who meets the
conditions in section 39(2) of this chapter, and if the parent having legal custody
of the child subsequently marries and that parent's spouse petitions to adopt the
child, the court upon notice and hearing may issue an order terminating the rights
of the other parent if both of the following occur:
(a) The other parent, having the ability to support, or assist in supporting,
the child, has failed or neglected to provide regular and substantial support for the
child or if a support order has been entered, has failed to substantially comply
with the order, for a period of 2 years or more before the filing of the petition.
(b) The other parent, having the ability to visit, contact, or communicate
with the child, has regularly and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a
period of 2 years or more before the filing of the petition.
The court's authority to terminate parental rights under this subsection is permissive
rather than mandatory, and the court need not grant termination, even if the statutory grounds are
established, if it finds that termination would not be in the best interests of the child. In re
-1-
Newton, 238 Mich App 486, 493-494; 606 NW2d 34 (1999). Respondent concedes that she
failed to comply with the support order for the requisite two-year period. Therefore, the focus is
on whether respondent substantially failed to maintain a relationship with the child for a period
of two or more years preceding the filing of the adoption petition.
A trial court may find that, although a noncustodial parent’s contacts were insufficient,
the parent did not have the ability to contact the minor child because the custodial parent resisted
attempted contacts. In re ALZ, 247 Mich App 264, 274; 636 NW2d 284 (2001). Again, the
noncustodial parent must have "the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the child."
MCL 710.51(6)(b) (emphasis added). Respondent admitted, however, that she made no attempt
whatsoever to contact the child in the year preceding the termination hearing, and she testified
that her last visit with the child was in April 2006. The last time respondent and the child had
contact was in June 2006. Petitioners filed the petition to terminate respondent's parental rights
in February 2009. Respondent claims that her earlier efforts to contact the child were thwarted
by petitioners; therefore, she lacked the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the child.
However, respondent did nothing to enforce her parental rights to parenting time in the courts.
See In re Martyn, 161 Mich App 474, 482-483; 411 NW2d 743 (1987) (no legal obstacles to
visitation existed). While a PPO was issued against respondent in June 2006, the order provided
for supervised parenting time by respondent; however, she failed to avail herself of this
continuing opportunity to visit the child. Her claims of economic hardship associated with
visiting costs ring hollow, especially where she failed to pursue legal avenues to address any
financial impediments. See In re Simon, 171 Mich App 443, 449; 431 NW2d 71 (1988)
(termination proper where the respondent never went to the court to request privileges). Further,
respondent testified that she failed to send the child cards or letters because she did not have
petitioners’ correct mailing address, even though she had been to the home on one prior occasion
and lived approximately five miles away. As the trial court stated, respondent simply “gave up.”
The result was lost contact with the child for at least two years. During that time the child
received the love and support of his stepmother, whom he looked to as a mother. Petitioners’
home was stable and the child’s needs were met. It was clear that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was in the child’s best interests. The trial court did not err in terminating
respondent's parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/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.
