IN RE N M WORMNEST MINOR (Per Curiam Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
July19, 2011
In the Matter of N. M. WORMNEST, Minor.
No. 301515
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2009-000263-NA
In the Matter of YOUNGBLOOD/WORMNEST,
Minors.
No. 301880
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2009-000261-NA
LC No. 2009-000262-NA
LC No. 2009-000263-NA
Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and METER and SHAPIRO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent father appeals by right the trial court order
terminating his parental rights to his minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j), and
respondent mother appeals by right the same order terminating her parental rights to her three
children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we
affirm the termination of parental rights of both parents.
I. FATHER
When the children were removed from the mother’s home and the initial petition was
filed in this matter, respondent father’s whereabouts were unknown. When he came forward
three months later, he was given a parent/agency agreement. At the time he made initial contact
with the Department of Human Services, (DHS), the father was living in a three quarter house
and was on probation for a domestic violence conviction. Through his domestic violence
conviction, the father was receiving some counseling services. However, numerous times
throughout these proceedings, he refused to provide an address to DHS, the Court, or his
attorney. His explanation was that certain individuals with whom he was living did not want
their address on the record. He also demonstrated a lax attitude toward the importance of
attending appointments and engaging in services that were offered to him. For example, it took
three appointments for him to attend and complete his court ordered psychological evaluation.
-1-
Additionally, he refused to take the medication that the doctor prescribed. Although referred
three times, he did not attend substance abuse classes. His hair follicle test and his drug screens
were negative, but he missed several tests and they were deemed positive.
Despite the fact that the father attended parenting classes, the record demonstrates that his
parenting skills did not improve. His failure to improve was primarily based on his refusal to
follow instructions to not overindulge his child or talk about issues regarding the case. He
refused to acknowledge problems with anger management, alcohol, or drugs and was thus denied
some services. He refused to admit the physical abuse of one of respondent mother’s sons or
being involved in any domestic violence, and he remained in denial about or blamed others for
all of his problems. Despite having no physical or mental disabilities, respondent father worked
only about ten hours per week for minimum wage throughout these proceedings, barely enough
to cover his minimal rent. His excuse for not working more hours was that he needed to attend
the required services. However, he attended services only sporadically and did not demonstrate
any benefit from them. He had not provided any financial support for his child in the past and
did not do so during these proceedings. In addition, he did not complete domestic violence
services because he was asked to pay for the remainder of the classes. His plan for reunification
was to return to the same situation from which the children had been removed.
II. MOTHER
The mother of the minor children had previously gone through several years of DHS
involvement, including numerous in-home services, before these proceedings began. The
children were removed from her care because of health and safety issues in the home, neglect
and failure to protect, mental health issues, domestic violence, and respondent mother’s abuse of
prescribed pain medication, which impaired her ability to function. She had been involved in
counseling before the removal, and she continued in counseling throughout the proceedings.
However, little progress had been made on any of the issues. She complied with the
psychological evaluation but participated only sporadically in the required services and did not
demonstrate any benefit from the services she attended.
DHS provided a housekeeper for respondent mother’s home because she could not “do
for herself.” Respondent mother was a hoarder, and her entire home was filled with boxes piled
on top of each other, creating very unsanitary and unsafe conditions, (including the presence of
cat feces throughout the home), which she was unable to correct. Her plan for reunification was
that her child with respondent father would be with her, Community Mental Health would come
in and care for him as they did when he was a preschooler, and Adult Services would do
household maintenance. She had also told the child that his father would be there. This was the
same situation, including all the in-home services, from which the children had been removed.
The children had made great progress since their removal, which demonstrated the severe neglect
that they had suffered while in respondent mother’s care. Respondent mother, however, had
gained no understanding of why her children were removed or how to be a better parent.
III. ANALYSIS
This Court reviews the trial court’s findings under the clearly erroneous standard. MCR
3.977(K); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520, reh den 460 Mich 1205 (1999); In re
Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 672; 692 NW2d 708 (2005). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous
-2-
if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. In re
JK, 468 Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003), reh den 468 Mich 1239 (2003). Further,
regard is to be given to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the
witnesses who appear before it. In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
We begin our analysis by determining whether the trial court clearly erred in finding clear
and convincing evidence supporting the statutory grounds for termination of both respondents’
parental rights. MCR 3.977(K); Sours, 459 Mich at 633; Gazella, 264 Mich App at 672.
Respondents’ parental rights were terminated under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j), which
provide:
(3) The court may terminate a parent’s parental rights to a child if the
court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, 1 or more of the following:
***
(c) The parent was a respondent in a proceeding brought under this
chapter, 182 or more days have elapsed since the issuance of an initial
dispositional order, and the court, by clear and convincing evidence, finds either
of the following:
(i) The conditions that led to the adjudication continue to exist and there is
no reasonable likelihood that the conditions will be rectified within a reasonable
time considering the child’s age.
***
(g) The parent, without regard to intent, fails to provide proper care or
custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be
able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the
child’s age.
***
(j) There is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of
the child’s parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is returned to the
home of the parent.
When the children were removed, respondent father’s whereabouts were unknown. He
had not provided support for the minor child. He told caseworker Strunk that he was attending
individual counseling for substance abuse, which turned out to be group counseling twice a
month. He was diagnosed with severe substance abuse problems and was referred three times
for treatment, but he did not attend substance abuse classes. On the positive side, his hair follicle
test and his drug screens were negative. However, he missed several tests and they were deemed
positive. Although he attended parenting classes, his parenting skills did not improve. Instead of
listening to the workers, he stated that he had improved and that the contrary belief of DHS
workers was their “opinion.” In addition, he refused to follow instructions to not talk to the
-3-
children about issues regarding the case. He refused to acknowledge problems with anger
management, alcohol, or drugs and thus was denied some services requiring the client to
acknowledge there was a problem. Though there was ample testimony to suggest that
respondent father had physically abused another of respondent’s minor children, he remained in
denial about or blamed others for all of his problems, including subjecting a minor child to
physical abuse.
Throughout this case, respondent father worked only about ten hours per week for
minimum wage, barely enough to cover his minimal rent. His excuse for not working more
hours was that he needed to attend the required services. However, he attended services only
sporadically, and did not demonstrate any benefit from them. In addition, he did not complete
domestic violence services because he was asked to pay for the remainder of the classes. The
record reveals that respondent father was never in a position to take proper care and custody of
the minor child, due to numerous reasons. First, he did not have sufficient income or a proper
home. Second, he demonstrated throughout the pendency of these proceedings that he was not
capable of working more than ten hours a week and also attend the services that were provided
toward reunification. Third, “his plan” was to move in with respondent mother and live off SSI
money, which both she and another minor child received, coupled with collecting and using state
offered services. This had been his plan prior to DHS involvement and the record established
that plan had proved very harmful to the children. Coupled with his plan of returning to the
status quo which led to unacceptable results was the fact that respondent father had no
comprehension of the severe problems that affected another minor within the household.
Respondent father had no idea how to effectively deal with or even understand how to parent
such a child. Hence, the conditions that led to the adjudication continued to exist at the
termination hearing. Based on respondent father’s refusal to acknowledge any problems or to
cooperate with services and his failure to benefit from the services provided, there was clear and
convincing evidence to support a conclusion that the conditions would not be rectified within a
reasonable time. MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). Without regard to his intent, it was clear that
respondent father had failed to provide proper care or custody for his child and there was no
reasonable expectation that he would be able to do so within a reasonable time. MCL
712A.19b(3)(g). Finally, there was clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s finding
that there was a reasonable likelihood, based on respondent-father’s conduct and capacity, and
his plan to go back to the conditions that led to the removal, that the child would be harmed if
returned to him. MCL 712A.19b(3)(j).
Respondent mother contends that she did everything asked of her under the parent/agency
agreement. The facts presented at the several hearings in this matter contradict this contention.
The record clearly demonstrated that respondent mother did not benefit from services and was
incapable of caring for herself, let alone any of her children. Moreover, “a parent must benefit
from the services offered so that he or she can improve parenting skills to the point where the
children would no longer be at risk in the parent’s custody.” In re Gazella, 264 Mich App at
676. Regarding her argument that the trial court erred in allowing the caseworker to testify as an
expert in all areas under the guise of offering testimony of experts through their written reports,
the reports were entered into the record without objection. Additionally, we note that the
caseworker, Sheila Strunk, was twice ordered by the court to inspect respondent mother’s new
home and failed to do so. However, the court made a determination that based on the
caseworker’s failure to comply, the court would consider the home suitable. Thus, respondent
-4-
mother did not suffer any adverse legal consequences by the failure of Strunk to comply with the
court’s order.
The record in this matter demonstrates a continuing pattern of neglect and abuse on the
part of respondent mother. The children were removed from respondent mother following
several years of DHS involvement beginning in 1998. She had numerous in-home services
because of health and safety issues in the home, which included failure to protect her children,
neglect of her children, mental health issues, domestic violence, and abuse of pain medications
that impaired her ability to function. She had been involved in counseling before the removal,
and she continued in counseling throughout this case to deal with depression, controlling
impulses, resolving anger, and finding housing. Despite years of intervention, the record reveals
that little progress had been made. Respondent mother also had continuing in-home involvement
by SASS. She complied with the psychological evaluation but participated only sporadically in
the required services. Due to respondent mother’s dependency on pain medications, when
alternative pain management programs were offered to her, she refused. Throughout the
proceedings, she was often in a prescription drug induced stupor, to the extent that she could
barely stumble to the visitation room and spent most of her visitation time on the couch with
little communication with the children. Her prescription drug-induced haze was noticeable at the
termination hearing, and she had begun to have problems with her short-term memory.
Respondent mother went back and forth about giving up her rights to some of her minor
children. Her mental health problems created very unsanitary and unsafe conditions for her
minor children. DHS provided a housekeeper to the home because respondent mother could not
“do for herself.” Her plan, stated at the termination hearing, was essentially the same plan that
led to DHS intervention. Compounding the mental health, substance abuse and physical issues
suffered by respondent mother was that at the time of their removal, the children were all thought
to have special needs. However, by the time of the termination hearing, one of her children was
no longer considered emotionally impaired and no longer in special education. In addition, that
child made it very clear that they did not want to be reunited with their mother but desired to
remain in their foster home. All of the other children had demonstrated significant strides toward
better physical and mental health following removal from their mother. We can only conclude
that the progress made by all of the children demonstrated the severe neglect that they suffered
while in respondent mother’s care.
Respondent mother did not demonstrate any benefit from the services she attended and
gained no understanding of why her children were removed or how to be a better parent. She
continued her dependency on high doses of pain medication, which left her in a stupor, unable to
communicate with her children, clean her home, or care for herself.
There was clear and convincing evidence to support a finding that the conditions which
led to the adjudication continued to exist and there was no reasonable expectation that they
would be rectified within a reasonable time. MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). Although the court did
not question respondent mother’s love for her children, there was clear and convincing evidence
to support a finding that, without regard to intent, respondent mother had failed to provide proper
care and custody for her children and there was no reasonable expectation that she would be able
to do so within a reasonable time. MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). Finally, there was clear and
convincing evidence to support a finding of a reasonable likelihood, based on her conduct and
-5-
capacity, that the children would be at serious risk of harm if returned to respondent’s home.
MCL 712A.19b(3)(j).
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondents’
parental rights was in the best interests of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 356-367; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Despite the numerous services and help provided to
respondents, neither parent created a home situation suitable for the return of the children. The
record indicates that neither was capable of creating a suitable home for their children. As
previously stated, one of the children made clear they did not want to return to the custody of
their mother. While the children had clearly suffered while living with their parents, the record
also reveals that they all made significant improvements once they were removed from that
home.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
-6-
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.
