IN RE D MAXWELL MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
February 15, 2011
In the Matter of D. MAXWELL, Minor.
No. 299742
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 09-000596-NA
Before: SERVITTO, P.J., and GLEICHER and SHAPIRO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent A. Harris appeals as of right from a trial court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). Because the trial court
did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear
and convincing evidence, we affirm.
The child was removed from respondent’s care because respondent was homeless and
because she had an anger management problem that resulted in her stabbing a relative in the
child’s presence. During the course of these proceedings, respondent threatened to kill her
mother if she had the child’s hair cut, and refused a referral to anger management classes
because she was engaged in domestic violence classes or counseling as a condition of her
criminal probation. However, not long after completing domestic violence treatment, respondent
stabbed her boyfriend during an argument. She thereafter discontinued anger management
counseling. Respondent also continued to live with her boyfriend because she was financially
dependent on him, and they admittedly continue to argue. Considering respondent’s history of
violence and failure to rectify that condition, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that
grounds for termination existed under §19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). MCR 3.977(H)(3)(a) and (K);
In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Contrary to what respondent argues on appeal, petitioner was not required to prove longterm future neglect as held in In re Draper, 150 Mich App 789, 798; 389 NW2d 179 (1986),
vacated in part 428 Mich 851 (1987), and In re Mason, 140 Mich App 734, 736; 364 NW2d 301
(1985). Those decisions relied on Fritts v Krugh, 354 Mich 97, 114; 92 NW2d 604 (1958),
overruled on other grounds by In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 444; 505 NW2d 834 (1993), which
established the proof necessary for termination under former MCL 712A.19a(e). That case
predates the enactment of current §19b(3), which now sets forth the criteria for termination.
Finally, because the evidence indicated that the child was not strongly bonded to
respondent, and respondent was not in a position to provide for the child’s basic needs and to
-1-
assure a stable and nurturing home environment, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that
termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5);
In re Trejo, 462 Mich at 356-357
Affirmed.
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
/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.
