-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

UNPUBLISHED

In re GIBSON/FAGAN, Minors. January 3, 2019

No. 343319

Ottawa Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 14-076962-NA

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and SAWYER and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

Respondent-mother appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental 

rights1 to AG and WF under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions that led to the adjudication 

continue to exist with no reasonable likelihood that they will be rectified) and MCL 

712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care or custody for the children). We affirm. 

During 2014, the trial court authorized a petition and assumed jurisdiction over AG 

because of domestic violence2 in the family home, in which respondent-mother was the 

perpetrator. AG was removed and placed into care for two years but later returned to 

respondent-mother’s care and custody. Then, during December 2016, the Department of Health 

and Human Services (DHHS) petitioned for removal of the children because of respondentmother’s neglect, failure to properly supervise the children, and respondent-mother’s recent 

felonious assault and assault and battery against three people for which respondent-mother was 

incarcerated, making her unable to provide care and custody for the children. The DHHS 

petitioned to terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights on the ground that respondent-mother 

failed to substantially benefit from services because she continued to display emotional 

instability, failed to comply with services, acted inappropriately with service providers, lacked 

parenting skills, failed to address domestic violence issues, and struggled with substance abuse. 

 1 The fathers for AG and WF are not parties to this appeal. 

2 Pursuant to In re Plump, 294 Mich App 270, 273; 817 NW2d 119 (2011), parental rights may 

not be terminated on the basis of a parent being a victim of domestic violence, but may be based 

on the parent’s own conduct that endangers the child. 
-2-

After performing six separate interactive tests on respondent-mother and AG, Sabrina 

Slagter, a family therapist for Bethan Christian Services, concluded that there existed weaknesses 

in the bond between the two, and that AG did not trust respondent-mother because AG lacked a 

secure attachment to her. Slagter testified that because AG had been placed in a foster home 

then subsequently was returned to respondent-mother only to be removed again, that 

significantly impacted the degree of attachment AG had to respondent-mother. Additionally, 

Slagter testified that AG had special needs because of her nontypical anger patterns. According 

to Slagter, AG had post-traumatic stress disorder which resulted in flashbacks and dissociative 

behavior. 

Delanie Norton, the foster-care case manager for both children, testified that between 

January to December 2017, respondent-mother sporadically attended counselling sessions but 

failed to progress based on reports from counselors. Counselors opined that respondent-mother 

failed to address her own trauma and the children’s trauma. In addition, Norton testified that 

personal interactions with respondent-mother gave rise to concerns for her ability to preserve her 

emotional stability. Respondent-mother became very confrontational and verbally aggressive 

during her visits. Norton also stated that respondent-mother often failed to take her medication 

as prescribed. Furthermore, respondent-mother tested positive for THC without a medical

marijuana card on three occasions and provided implausible explanations for why she tested 

positive. This raised concerns as to whether she would continue to permit the use of marijuana

in their family home if the children were returned to her. 

At the termination hearing on March 23, 2018, respondent-mother appeared in court but 

then left shortly after the proceedings commenced. Counsel for respondent-mother indicated that 

respondent-mother left because she had already decided that she was going to appeal the trial 

court’s decision at a later date. 

Upon conducting the best-interests portion of the hearing, the trial court found that the 

children were adoptable, in good health, and had spent the majority of their lives in foster care. 

These factors weighed in favor of termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights. In 

addition, the children’s special needs weighed in favor of termination because reunification with 

respondent-mother would be problematic given their behavioral issues. Based on witnesses’ 

testimonies, the trial court found that the bond between the children and respondent-mother was 

damaged. The preponderance of evidence established that the best-interests factors weighed in 

favor of terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. 

Respondent-mother argues that the trial court erred by terminating her parental rights 

because clear and convincing evidence did not establish statutory grounds for termination since 

respondent-mother participated in services toward compliance with her treatment plan. We 

disagree. 

To terminate parental rights, the trial court must find at least one of the statutory grounds 

for termination in MCL 712A.19b(3) by clear and convincing evidence. In re VanDalen, 293 

Mich App 120, 139; 809 NW2d 412 (2011). We review for clear error the trial court’s 

determination of whether at least one of the grounds was established. MCR 3.977(K); id. A 

factual finding is clearly erroneous if this Court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake 

was made. In re HRC, 286 Mich App 444, 459; 781 NW2d 105 (2009). This Court defers to the 
-3-

trial court’s “special opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses.” Id. When a statutory 

ground for termination is proven, the trial court shall order termination of parental rights if 

termination of parental rights is in the children’s best interests in light of the evidence set forth in 

the whole record.

3

 In re LE, 278 Mich App 1, 25; 747 NW2d 883 (2008). If this Court 

concludes that the trial court did not clearly err by finding one statutory ground for termination, 

we need not address the additional grounds. In re HRC, 286 Mich App at 461. 

The trial court found that clear and convincing evidence established grounds for 

termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g), which provide: 

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.[4] 

In this case, witnesses’ testimonies and documentary evidence in the record established 

that the conditions that led to the adjudication continued to exist and that no reasonable 

likelihood existed that the conditions would be rectified within a reasonable time considering the 

children’s ages. The record indicates that respondent-mother’s main barriers to reunification 

concerned her emotional instability and lack of consistency in complying with her treatment 

plan. Evidence in the record established that, during the pendency of this case, respondentmother continued to display emotional instability on numerous occasions, and that she failed to 

fully comply with services. Respondent-mother failed to develop appropriate parenting skills 

 3 Respondent-mother only challenges the trial court’s determination of whether statutory grounds 

for termination were established. 

4 MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) was amended after the termination order entered in this case. See 2018 

PA 58. We apply the language in force of the time that the trial court terminated respondentmother’s parental rights. 
-4-

and she lacked healthy bonds with the children. She also failed to consistently take her 

medications, and even when she did, she displayed combative and aggressive behaviors toward 

her caseworker during parenting-time visits. Evidence established that respondent-mother 

lacked the ability to control her emotions and aggressive behavior. 

The evidence in the record clearly established that respondent-mother faced lifelong 

problems that required consistent use of her prescribed medications and consistent attendance at 

counseling to work through her emotional instability and overcome the barriers to enable her to 

appropriately parent the children. Although respondent-mother engaged in services in the last 90 

days before the termination hearing, she was a long way from substantially addressing and 

resolving her problems. Additionally, the sudden urgency to comply with her treatment plan in 

the last 90 days before the termination hearing suggests that this was a last-minute effort, and not 

one truly driven by the desire to properly care for her children.

The record also indicates that respondent-mother continued to struggle with substance 

abuse. She tested positive for marijuana use, denied she used, and gave implausible excuses for 

her positive drug tests. The record does not indicate that respondent-mother ever acknowledged 

and seriously addressed these issues, as demonstrated by her inability to comply with the 

treatment plan.

The record indicates that respondent-mother was provided numerous services to enable 

her to rectify the conditions that brought the children into care. She sporadically engaged in 

services and only complied at the very end of the pendency of this case. The record reflects that 

she did not benefit from services despite having every opportunity to do so. We hold that clear 

and convincing evidence established grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i).

5

 

Respondent-mother’s argument that she rectified all of the issues that she faced lacks evidentiary 

support. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by finding that the barriers to reunification 

continued to exist and that respondent-mother failed to rectify her problems. 

Because the trial court correctly decided that grounds for termination existed under MCL 

712A.19b(3)(c)(i), we need not consider whether it correctly ruled regarding other statutory 

grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3). See In re HRC, 286 Mich App at 461. 

Affirmed. 

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle 

/s/ David H. Sawyer 

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause 

 5 There is no dispute that 182 days or more elapsed between the initial disposition and the 

termination.