IN RE B R BENEDICT MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
April 12, 2011
In the Matter of B. R. BENEDICT, Minor.
No. 300996
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 10-032603-NA
Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to
the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(i), (l), and (m). We affirm.
Termination of parental rights is appropriate where petitioner proves by clear and
convincing evidence at least one ground for termination. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 355; 612
NW2d 407 (2000); In re B and J, 279 Mich App 12, 17; 756 NW2d 234 (2008). This Court
reviews the lower court’s findings under the clearly erroneous standard. MCR 3.977(K); In re
Mason Minors, 486 Mich 142, 152; 782 NW2d 747 (2010); In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624,
633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); B and J, 279 Mich App at 17. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous
if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,
giving due regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to observe the witnesses. Mason, 486
Mich at 152; In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989); B and J, 279 Mich App at
17-18.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding clear and convincing evidence to terminate
respondent’s parental rights to the minor child B. R. Benedict under subsections (i) and (l). In
2006, a Children’s Protective Services (CPS) case was opened with regard to an older child, C.
Cusac, due to severe environmental neglect and lack of food. Respondent was offered Families
First and the parent mentor program, but she made minimal progress. In 2008, she failed to
follow through on her substance abuse assessment and was terminated from counseling. She did
complete parenting classes, but the instructor did not recommend reunification. Between
December 2007 and March 2008, respondent completely failed to visit this child. Her rights to
C. Cusac were terminated under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) in 2008.
The above facts satisfy both MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) and (l) as to B. R. Benedict in this
case. Subsection (3)(l) merely requires a prior termination resulting from proceedings under the
child protection laws. Subsection (3)(i) additionally requires that the prior termination be “due
to serious and chronic neglect or physical or sexual abuse, and prior attempts to rehabilitate the
-1-
parents have been unsuccessful.” The facts in C. Cusac’s case satisfy both standards, as the trial
court found.
Whether MCL 712A.19b(3)(m) was established is not as clear. However, only one
subsection need be proven by clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights. In re
Powers, 244 Mich App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472 (2000). Because the other two subsections
were established, we need not consider whether subsection (3)(m) was also established.
Next, respondent argues that the trial court clearly erred in finding that termination was in
the infant B. R. Benedict’s best interest. We disagree. Respondent correctly notes that her
participation and performance improved with B. R. Benedict over that with C. Cusac. She
attended visits consistently with B. R. Benedict, and reports of their interactions were mostly
positive. Respondent’s living situation was apparently improved. She attended parenting classes
and some counseling and took medication for her bipolar disorder. We do not mean to trivialize
these efforts, but she also repeated the same pattern of instability and lack of follow-through she
had demonstrated with her other children. She did not attend the final hearing in this case.
Previously, she failed to schedule her psychological evaluation and to give Cathedral Counseling
her phone number after being dismissed from Westlund Counseling, apparently for
nonparticipation. The evaluating psychologist opined that respondent would probably need
monitoring to care for her baby. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that respondent
would not be able to provide the child with adequate care within a reasonable time.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Kristen Frank Kelly
/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
-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.