IN RE CRAWFORD/GREENE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
January 11, 2011
In the Matter of CRAWFORD/GREENE, Minors.
No. 297805
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-452266
Before: MARKEY, P.J., and WILDER and STEPHENS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals by right the circuit court’s order terminating her parental rights to the
minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. This appeal has
been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(H)(3)(a)1 and (K); In re Trejo,
462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The children came into care in July 2008 due to
respondent’s long-term substance abuse, homelessness, mental health issues, and unemployment.
During the year and a half that the children remained in foster care, respondent obtained housing
but did not otherwise rectify the conditions that led to the children’s removal. Significantly, she
never obtained a legal source of income and continued to test positive for illegal drugs even after
the supplemental petition was filed.
Further, considering respondent’s failure to benefit from services and the children’s need
for permanency and stability, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of
1
We note that the 2010 amendments to MCR 3.977 adding a new subsection (G) relating to
Indian children has resulted in an apparent drafting error with redesignated MCR 3.977(H)(3)(a)
still referring to “subrule (G)(2)” rather than the evidentiary standard found in “subrule (H)(2).”
-1-
respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo,
462 Mich at 356-357. Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental
rights to the children.
We affirm.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
-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.
