IN RE C FLOYD MINOR (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED December 3, 2020 In re FLOYD, Minor. No. 353051 Genesee Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 12-129129-NA Before: JANSEN, P.J., and FORT HOOD and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ. RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. (concurring) I fully join the majority’s recitation of the facts and analysis of petitioner’s reasonable efforts. I respectfully concur with the majority’s resolution of the statutory grounds and best interests analysis on slightly narrower grounds. Ordinarily, I would be concerned in this case that respondent was inappropriately and illegally punished for being a victim of domestic violence. See In re Plump, 294 Mich App 270, 273; 817 NW2d 119 (2011). However, critically, respondent was under a court order that could not possibly have been more clear forbidding her to have contact with DF as a core condition of retaining custody of the child. Moreover, respondent in fact agreed that it would not be appropriate for DF to be around the child. The fact that respondent repeatedly returned to DF with the child, in flagrant violation of the court’s order, and repeatedly lied about it, completely destroys any possible confidence that the apparent progress she otherwise made was the slightest bit real. Respondent, of her own free volition, established that the conditions that led to adjudication continued to exist and precluded any faith that those conditions could be rectified within a reasonable time. MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). She simultaneously made it clear that the child’s well-being was not a true priority to her. On that basis, I concur that a statutory ground for termination was established and that termination was in the child’s best interests. /s/ Amy Ronayne Krause -1-
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.
