IN RE P JACKSON JR MINOR (Per Curiam Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
August 11, 2011
In the Matter of P. JACKSON, JR., Minor.
No. 302200
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2007-000374-NA
Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., and WILDER and OWENS, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
This Court reviews both the trial court’s termination decision and its best interests
decision for clear error. MCR 3.977(K); MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence
to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was
made. In re LE, 278 Mich App 1, 18; 747 NW2d 883 (2008).
The trial court did not clearly err when it terminated respondent’s parental rights pursuant
to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). The issues that led to adjudication concerning respondent
were his incarceration and failure to provide financial, emotional, or physical support for the
minor child. After respondent was paroled in November 2009, he was provided with services
and visitation. Visitation began as supervised but quickly escalated to unsupervised and
weekends. Respondent was initially compliant with services and with the terms of his parole. In
February 2010, however, he did not comply with the required drug screens. Beginning in April
and for the next five months, respondent either tested positive for marijuana and cocaine,
admitted marijuana and cocaine use, or did not provide the required screens.
Also in April 2010, respondent reported he was living in a shelter, and it was determined
that this was not an appropriate place for visitation. Respondent did not contact the caseworker
for two weeks, and the caseworker then requested that the court’s visitation order be changed to
supervised visitation because respondent had begun to test positive for marijuana and cocaine.
Other than once in June, respondent did not appear again for visitation, and parenting time was
suspended in August 2010. At the end of August, respondent turned himself in for parole
violations involving drug use and failure to report. Rather than spend time in prison, respondent
was allowed to live and obtain treatment on an inpatient basis at KPEP, a program that provides
a community alternative to incarceration.
-1-
Respondent did well in the KPEP program. At the time of the termination hearing,
respondent was still living at KPEP, had recently gotten a job at Taco Bell, and was not using
drugs. Although his parole had been extended, respondent’s parole officer was pleased with his
progress. Respondent had a large family, and they appeared to be supportive when he was clean
but not when he was using drugs. Unfortunately, respondent’s history throughout the
proceedings showed that he did well in a structured environment but did not do well in an
environment that was not structured. The trial court complimented respondent on his honesty
and believed that he was a good man and loved his son. Respondent, however, was unable to
provide proper care and custody for the minor child and there was no reasonable expectation that
he would be able to do so within a reasonable time considering the age of the three-year-old
minor child. The trial court also acknowledged respondent’s large family but noted that when
respondent was using drugs, he did not have their support.
We also find that the trial court did not clearly err in its best interests determination. The
trial court very carefully reviewed factors that were relevant to this issue. The minor child was
three years old and respondent had only been in his life for a three-month period. This was not a
long enough period to have created a strong bond. Respondent had not provided guidance to the
minor child in terms of love, affection, and religion. He did not have a stable home and did not
have steady income to provide for the minor child’s needs, including food, clothing, and medical
care. Respondent had been unable to show that he could provide the minor child with a stable
environment because of his drug use. The trial court was not convinced that respondent had
addressed his “demons” and would not “fall off the wagon,” throwing the minor child’s life into
chaos. Respondent’s relapse into drug use, and lack of family support when he was using, was
not a stable environment for the minor child. The trial court noted that the minor child was in a
stable environment in foster care but did not weigh which environment was best for the minor
child in its analysis, although it could have. In re Foster, 285 Mich App 630; 776 NW2d 415
(2009). Although the trial court recognized respondent’s good moral character, the trial court did
not clearly err when it focused on what was in the best interests of the minor child and
determined that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the minor child’s best
interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
