IN RE A B EDWARDS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
January 18, 2011
In the Matter of A. B. EDWARDS, Minor.
No. 298431
Eaton Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 08-017070-NA
Before: METER, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent mother appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). Because we conclude that
there were no errors warranting relief, we affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that statutory grounds for termination of
respondent’s parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); MCR 3.977(K).
In July 2008, the three-year-old child was found wandering around outside respondent’s
apartment complex. Respondent was inside sleeping and one of the oven burners was turned on
at “high.” Police officers woke respondent, who stated that she was not a morning person and
that her son was very smart. At that time it was also discovered that, although suffering from a
respiratory infection, respondent had neglected to give the child his course of antibiotics. Rather
than remove the child from respondent’s care, the decision was made to provide respondent with
in-home services through Families First. Respondent sufficiently complied with the program to
reduce her risk level from “high” to “moderate.” However, the agency feared that respondent
was still unable to consistently demonstrate the ability to meet her child’s needs. And, in August
2008, the agency offered other services and referrals; these included continued Families First
services, Families Together Building Strong Solutions, and a psychological evaluation.
Respondent completed the psychological evaluation on September 5, 2008. However, on
September 8, 2008, respondent was again substantiated on a referral of neglect. Child Protective
Services workers observed the child playing on the playground on the other side of the apartment
complex while respondent was talking with some friends. Respondent was unemployed and was
no longer eligible for cash assistance because of her noncompliance with Work First. The
decision was made to remove the child from respondent’s care.
-1-
Respondent’s early efforts were weak. She was released from the Job Education and
Training Program for noncompliance in February 2009. She had issues with personal hygiene
and was asked to leave and shower on one occasion. Respondent would fill out job applications
but fail to deliver them, claiming that her lack of transportation was an issue. Yet when advised
that respondent could get her learner’s permit and the agency would help pay the costs,
respondent failed to take advantage of the offer. Respondent missed a number of classes and
then often fell asleep in the classes she did attend. Despite several warnings, respondent failed to
adjust her behavior and she was asked to leave the program.
Respondent’s counseling sessions early on in the case were similarly weak. Her
counselor testified that respondent was initially defensive and not receptive to counseling. Her
attendance at first was also spotty. Respondent failed to appreciate the role she played in her
son’s removal and perceived herself at the victim. There did come a point when respondent’s
attendance improved, as did her attitude; she came to fully accept responsibility for the child’s
removal and also finally saw that her failure to properly supervise the child placed him in danger.
Respondent also successfully completed parenting classes in April 2009. Her instructor
testified that respondent was an eager participant and even requested additional reading material.
The instructor had a chance to meet with both respondent and her son and they worked on how
respondent needed to read the child’s cues. Respondent canceled only one session. The
instructor noted that the condition of respondent’s house was “okay” and not excessively dirty.
Respondent was also able to successfully locate and maintain employment. By the time
of the termination hearing, respondent had been working at Taco Bell for approximately nine
months. Although she earned meager wages, both the psychologist who performed respondent’s
psychological evaluation, Dr. Haugen, and her treating counselor, Jan Cilla, agreed that
employment for respondent was crucial. It allowed her to participate in social settings and
forced her to deal with stressors that accompanied having a job.
There was no question that respondent made strides in certain aspects of the case. Her
hygiene had improved, the cleanliness of her home had improved, she was fully engaged in
counseling, and she found employment. Still, respondent lacked sufficient progress to warrant
reunification. Cilla described respondent’s progress as “slow” and in “fits and starts.” And,
when asked if the child were returned to respondent, would he be at risk of harm, Cilla answered
that she would like to think that respondent would do fine, but did not believe that she would:
[t]hat’s not the real world and in juggling all of those different stressors I think
that she will still become easily frustrated, overwhelmed, agitated, emotional, and
that her anxiety level, those things tend to, we see a surge in them when her
anxiety level is high, so, you know, on a good day she’ll—she’ll do okay. On a
bad day she won’t.
Similarly, when asked if she thought termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the
child’s best interests, Cilla noted that she had “really struggled with that with this case,” but
ultimately thought that the child “would have a tough go of it” whenever respondent “was having
a tough go.”
-2-
Much of Cilla’s focus was on respondent’s history. Both of her parents died when she
was young. Respondent went to live with an aunt who was physically and emotionally abusive.
There were no family members for respondent to look to for support and encouragement.
Instead, respondent had a number of friends in whom she confided and relied on for support.
The problem was that most of these friends were in the same position as respondent—young,
with children, and unemployed. Respondent’s home became a gathering place for all of these
individuals. Respondent, therefore, had a family history of abuse and neglect that did not equip
her with the skills she needed to raise her own child. Both Haugen and Cilla admitted that
respondent was not a lost cause, but that she would require long-term support.
Based on the evidence, the statutory bases for termination were proven by clear and
convincing evidence. MCL 712A.19b(3). What limited progress respondent did make was
under order of the court and threats of termination. In light of that, it was reasonable for the
court to assume that, absent constant intervention, respondent would likely revert to her old
habits when the stresses of life and motherhood became too much. This was in keeping with the
professional opinions rendered at trial. Contrary to respondent’s assertions, this potential for
future neglect was not mere speculation, but was grounded in the history of the case itself and
respondent’s behavior. The termination hearing occurred approximately 20 months after A. B.
was placed into care. Respondent had made progress during that time, but the progress was slow
there was evidence that it was not long-standing. Thus, there was clear and convincing evidence
that more than 182 days had elapsed since adjudication and the conditions leading to
adjudication continued to exist without the possibility that the conditions would be rectified
within a reasonable time considering the child’s age. MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). And, although
respondent may have come to realize that her failure to properly supervise A. B. placed him in
danger, there was simply not enough evidence that respondent had rectified the problems with
her parenting skills. Accordingly, the evidence also clearly and convincingly established that,
even with gains in employment and housing, respondent would not be able to provide A. B. with
proper care or custody within a reasonable time and that he would be at risk of harm if returned
to her care. MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), and (j).
Having found the statutory grounds for termination proven by clear and convincing
evidence, the trial court then had to determine whether termination of respondent’s parental
rights was in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). The visits generally went well in that
both respondent and A. B. clearly enjoyed each other’s company and were happy to see one
another. More than one witness noted, however, that respondent seemed to lack the stamina to
make it through a two-hour visit fully engaged with the young child. She was interactive for the
first hour, but would then become distracted and do something else, such as read or talk on the
phone. Still, no one doubted that they shared a bond and it was often difficult to end the visits.
However, A. B. had recently changed a bit in his attitude toward the visits, wondering when they
would end and when he could go home. He also developed some potty training issues that some
speculated were the result of the stress of visiting respondent. Further, a foster care worker
testified that A. B. had clearly bonded with his foster parents. He even expressed an interest in
changing his last name and called his foster parents mom and dad. Because respondent was
unwilling to change, did not make progress until recently—even with close to two years of
service—and because A. B. was bonding with his foster parents, the foster care worker opined
that it would be in A. B.’s best interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights.
-3-
Twenty months had passed since A. B. was brought into care and there was little hope
that respondent would make sufficient strides that reunification would be possible in the near
future. He was entitled to permanence and stability. The trial court did not clearly err in finding
that termination was in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich at
356-357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
-4-
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.
