-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

 

UNPUBLISHED 

In re BARSCEWSKI/BARSCEWSKI-MAYS, 

Minors. 

September 8, 2015 

No. 325409 

Kent Circuit Court 

 Family Division 

LC No. 12-052800-NA; 

 12-052801-NA; 

 12-052802-NA 

 

Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and MURPHY and MARKEY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Respondent appeals by right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her 

three minor children, BB, IB, and DB, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions that led to the 

adjudication continue to exist), (c)(ii) (other conditions to cause the child to come within the 

court’s jurisdiction continue to exist), (g) (failure to provide proper care and custody), and (j) 

(children will be harmed if returned to parent). We affirm. 

I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 On September 7, 2012, petitioner petitioned the trial court to take jurisdiction over 

respondent’s children, remove them from her home, and terminate her and the children’s father’s 

parental rights.1

 The basis of the petition was that the youngest child, DB, was admitted to the 

hospital with multiple rib fractures and respondent failed to provide an explanation for the 

fractures. DB was 13 days old at the time. The children were initially placed in foster care; the 

oldest child, BB, was later placed with a maternal uncle but was returned to foster care after his 

parents had unauthorized contact with him. Respondent entered into a treatment plan with 

petitioner that identified her barriers to reunification or needs as emotional stability, substance 

abuse, and parenting skills. Respondent was adjudicated in October 2012 and the trial court took 

jurisdiction over the children. At the dispositional hearing, it was revealed that the children’s 

father had convictions for assault and domestic violence and that respondent had been arrested 

three times for domestic violence against the father. At least one domestic violence incident had 

 

1

 The children’s father voluntarily released his parental rights to the children on September 23, 

2014 and is not a party to this appeal. 
-2- 

resulted in BB being accidentally hit by a cellular phone, although the record does not indicate 

who threw the phone. Respondent had participated in a psychological evaluation and was 

diagnosed with major depressive disorder. The caseworker also testified that BB had been 

diagnosed with cognitive impairments and impaired motor skills. After the initial dispositional 

hearing, the trial court ordered that reasonable efforts be made to reunify respondent and father 

with the minor children. 

 Respondent initially actively participated in many services provided by petitioner, 

including parenting classes, individual counseling, and anger management, and tested negative 

for substances apart from her prescription medicines. Respondent interacted well with the 

children during parenting times. Respondent continued to live with the children’s father. 

Respondent and the children’s father denied responsibility for DB’s injuries. Respondent 

treatment plan was updated to include among her issues her domestic relationship with the 

children’s father. In January 2013, the children’s father was arrested for a domestic incident 

where he threw something at respondent; he was jailed for two weeks but the charges were 

eventually dropped. 

 At a permanency planning hearing in July 2013, respondent’s caseworker reported that 

respondent was in the process of divorcing the children’s father and that she was actively 

engaged in domestic violence treatment. BB was struggling with violent behaviors at school but 

was doing well in his foster placement. DB and IB were doing well in their placements. 

 In October 2013, BB was released to respondent’s home. In January 2014, the 

caseworker reported that DB was doing well in his foster care and extended visits with 

respondent. The caseworker reported that IB had disclosed that she had witnessed many 

instances of domestic violence between respondent and father in the past, and was participating 

in counseling. IB had indicated that she was afraid of BB. BB had been prescribed medication 

that improved his behaviors and was attending counseling; his school behavior was improving. 

At that time, respondent told the caseworker that she was not living with the children’s father 

and had minimal contact with him. However, the caseworker conducted an unannounced visit of 

respondent’s home in November 2013, and found BB home alone with his father. Respondent 

told her that she could not find anyone else to watch BB while she attended a counseling session 

and that her neighbor, who normally watched him, had a family emergency. The neighbor 

confirmed that she had been at the hospital for most of the day but denied that respondent had 

asked her to babysit that day. At some point, IB disclosed to the caseworker that respondent had 

hit her, but that allegation had not been investigated at the time of the hearing. 

 By April 2014, BB was still doing well in respondent’s home and his behaviors were 

improving. IB had made two allegations that respondent had hit her during parenting time at her 

home; however one of the allegations had not been substantiated and investigation into the other 

allegation was ongoing. IB told the caseworker that she did not feel safe during her parenting 

times in respondent’s home because BB would fight with respondent. Additionally, respondent 

had resubmitted divorce papers after she and the children’s father did not follow through with the 

original divorce filing. DB and IB remained placed in foster care with parenting time visits at 

respondent’s home. 
-3- 

 On May 1, 2014, IB and DB were returned to respondent’s home. On May 23, 2014, the 

children were removed from the home after Amanda Leino, an investigator with petitioner, 

found bruising on DB’s face, back, stomach, and side. All three children were placed in foster 

care. At a dispositional review hearing in June 2014, Leino reported that CPS had received a 

report that respondent and her children had been at a Family Dollar store, that an employee of the 

store had heard a “loud slapping noise,” and that the employee had subsequently seen bruises 

forming on DB’s face. Respondent told Leino that IB had caused DB’s injuries. IB told the 

investigator that, on one occasion, she had hit DB with a board that had a tack in it, and that, on 

another occasion, she had hit him in the face with a hose when DB was trying to grab it away 

from her; she also reported that BB had kicked DB. A doctor examined DB and concluded that 

his injuries were not self-inflicted. Leino could not determine who had caused DB’s injuries. 

 The caseworker testified that after the minor children were returned to foster care after 

being removed from respondent’s home a second time, IB and DB were more aggressive and DB 

appeared to be a “little bit skittish” when he got in trouble and would flinch when his foster 

parents would come toward him. IB told her foster parents that respondent and BB got into 

“crazy” fights and that respondent would hit and bite when she got upset. The caseworker 

reported that respondent told her that IB kicked DB in the back, but that respondent told the 

investigator that BB kicked DB in the back. Emlie Goldner, program manager of Spectrum 

Community Services’ children’s department, testified that she provided services for BB from the 

end of October 2013 and was in respondent’s home with him three days a week for 

approximately two hours. She had no concerns regarding respondent’s level of supervision or 

discipline and did not see respondent ever strike the children.

 At a later dispositional review hearing in June 2014, Leino stated her conclusion that 

there was a preponderance of the evidence to substantiate physical neglect, failure to protect, and 

improper supervision on respondent’s part, but not physical abuse, regarding the Family Dollar 

incident. The caseworker recommended that BB alone be returned to respondent’s home 

because he had made substantial improvement during the time he spent in respondent’s home 

from September 2013 to May 2014. BB was released to respondent’s home on July 3, 2014; IB 

and DB remained in foster care. However, that very same day petitioner again requested that the 

trial court remove BB after an employee of petitioner visited respondent’s home and found the 

children’s father, as well as marijuana, in the home. BB disclosed that his father was living in 

the home and that BB was experiencing upset stomachs and incontinence because of his fear of 

his father. The trial court ordered BB removed from the home. At the dispositional review 

hearing concerning BB’s removal, the caseworker testified that respondent’s treatment plan 

required that respondent not allow the children’s father to be around the children because he had 

not completed any steps to address his issue with domestic violence. The caseworker reported 

that she found several pieces of the children’s father’s clothing in BB’s room, and that when she 

spoke with BB regarding his stomach problems, BB initially told her that “he couldn’t tell [the 

caseworker] or he wouldn’t be able to see [respondent] anymore.” Respondent and the 

children’s father had denied that he was living there or that there was marijuana in the home, 

although the father admitted to smoking marijuana outside the home when he came over to get 

some clothes and a motorcycle. 

 The caseworker further testified that approximately 1-1/2 months before the hearing, IB 

said that “Daddy is going to live in the trailer with us and it’s a secret.” After BB was returned 
-4- 

to foster care, he showed the caseworker pictures from June 27, 2014, depicting respondent, BB, 

and his father together at a birthday party. The caseworker testified that she spoke with the 

children’s father and he told her that he was going to leave the state of Michigan because he 

loved respondent and he was not going to be able to stay away from her. 

 Respondent was referred to a group therapy program designed to help abused or 

neglected women reunite with their children. Respondent continued individual therapy. BB’s 

stomach issues and incontinence did not occur in his foster care placement. 

 In September 2014, the caseworker reported that respondent had been resistant to starting 

the group therapy program designed to help abused or neglected women reunite with their 

children because she felt that it was unfair that she had to participate in another program, and 

was now on the waiting list because she had missed her first opportunity to enter the program. 

The caseworker testified that IB said that respondent told her to be bad in her foster home, that 

respondent told her that she was a “bitch” and that respondent hit her and her siblings during 

unsupervised visits and when they were placed in respondent’s home. The caseworker was 

concerned that respondent was coaching IB not to report incidents of domestic violence. IB’s 

therapist testified that respondent had expressed animosity toward IB’s foster parents to IB, and 

IB was confused as a result, as she felt that she had to choose between her biological parents and 

her foster parents. The caseworker also reported that BB had hit respondent during parenting 

times and called her names. BB also said that respondent told him not to look at his foster 

parents and that his foster parents did not care about him. The trial court ordered the goal for the 

minor children to be changed to adoption and ordered petitioner to initiate proceedings to 

terminate parental rights. The trial court suspended respondent’s parenting time. The children’s 

father voluntarily released his rights shortly thereafter. 

 Petitioner filed a supplemental petition requesting termination of respondent’s parental 

rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j). At the 

termination hearing, respondent’s therapist, Bethany Bertapelle (also IB’s therapist) reported that 

respondent had initially benefited from therapy from May 2013 to November 2013, but had 

ceased therapy and declined her invitation to resume it. Bertapelle reported that IB had 

nightmares about respondent trying to kill her and preferred to have parenting time in a 

supervised environment rather than respondent’s home. Bertapelle felt that IB did not feel safe 

with respondent and that respondent instructed her children to keep secrets about what happened 

in her home. Bertapelle testified that she believed that the minor children would be at a risk of 

harm if they were returned to respondent. Bertapelle also testified that IB was bonded with her 

foster parents. 

 The caseworker testified regarding respondent’s completed services. Despite the 

numerous services completed by respondent, the caseworker felt that DB’s injuries in her care, as 

well as the continued presence of the children’s father in their lives, indicated that respondent did 

not provide her children with proper supervision. She testified that respondent had told IB to 

keep secrets. The caseworker testified that she did not believe that respondent could make 

enough progress regarding parenting for the minor children to be returned to her care within a 

reasonable time because respondent did not understand how her relationship with his father 

affected BB, respondent did not understand how IB still needed counseling for emotional 

regulation and coping skills, and respondent was not able to internalize what she learned during 
-5- 

counseling to the extent necessary to be capable of meeting the minor children’s needs as a 

group. The caseworker did not believe that respondent was able to handle the stress and 

responsibility of having all three of the minor children in her care at the same time. The 

caseworker believed that emotional stability was a barrier to reunification for respondent. 

 The caseworker further testified that while respondent and the children’s father’s divorce 

was finalized in July 2014, they were still in contact, even after the father’s parental rights were 

terminated. The caseworker testified that domestic violence remained a barrier for respondent 

and that the barrier could not be addressed within a reasonable time. 

 The caseworker also testified that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the 

minor children’s best interests based on respondent’s history regarding parenting, emotional 

stability, and domestic relations, the minor children’s need for permanency, the lack of a positive 

bond between the children and respondent, the advantages of the minor children’s respective 

foster homes, and the foster families’ willingness to adopt. During cross-examination, the 

caseworker stated that respondent’s bond with IB was “pretty positive,” but that it did not appear 

that respondent had a strong, positive bond with IB and DB, although she believed that 

respondent loved the minor children. 

 A home care nurse for respondent’s grandmother testified to an incident that occurred 

approximately 8 to 10 months before the termination hearing. She stated that respondent and the 

children’s father had argued over who would sell respondent’s prescription drugs, that this 

argument took place in BB’s presence, and that respondent had screamed loudly. The 

caseworker testified that she counted the number of respondent’s prescription pills and it 

appeared that respondent was taking her medicine appropriately.

 Goldner testified that she felt respondent was bonded to her children and that she had 

never witnessed any evidence of abuse in respondent’s home. 

 After the close of proofs, the trial court issued its opinion from the bench. The court 

found that there was clear and convincing evidence of a ground for termination under 

MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) because a condition that led to adjudication continued to exist in regard 

to respondent’s inappropriate parenting based on continued problems with physical abuse and 

inappropriate physical discipline and there was no reasonable likelihood that the condition would 

be rectified within a reasonable time. The trial court found that there was clear and convincing 

evidence of a ground for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) because other conditions 

that caused the minor children to come within the court’s jurisdiction continued to exist in regard 

to domestic violence and respondent’s sale of her prescription drugs and there was no reasonable 

likelihood that the conditions would be rectified within a reasonable time. The trial court found 

that under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed 

to provide proper care and custody for the minor children and that there was no reasonable 

expectation that respondent would be able to provide proper care and custody within a 

reasonable time considering the children’s ages. The trial court also found that under 

MCL 712A.19b(3)(j), there was clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable likelihood of 

harm to the minor children if they were returned to respondent because DB was harmed after the 

minor children were previously returned to respondent. The trial court also found by a 

preponderance of the evidence that it was in the minor children’s best interests to terminate 
-6- 

respondent’s parental rights based on respondent’s history with domestic violence and physical 

abuse, the minor children’s need for permanency, respondent’s inability to provide the children 

with an appropriate home for “many months,” and the possibility for adoption. The trial court 

entered an order terminating respondent’s parental rights. This appeal followed. 

II. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION 

 Respondent argues that the trial court erred in finding statutory grounds for termination. 

We disagree. To terminate parental rights, a trial court must find the existence of a statutory 

ground for termination has been met by clear and convincing evidence. MCL 712A.19b; In re 

McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). A trial court’s factual findings in 

terminating parental rights are reviewed for clear error. MCR 3.977(K); In re Trejo Minors, 462 

Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Only one statutory ground for termination must be 

established. Trejo Minors, 462 Mich at 360. 

 Here, the trial court found statutory grounds for terminating respondent’s parental rights 

under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j), 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. 

 (ii) Other conditions exist that cause the child to come within the court’s 

jurisdiction, the parent has received recommendations to rectify those conditions, 

the conditions have not been rectified by the parent after the parent has received 

notice and a hearing and has been given a reasonable opportunity to rectify the 

conditions, 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. 

* * * 
-7- 

 (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. 

 Regarding MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), the first dispositional order was entered on 

November 19, 2012. The termination hearing occurred on December 3, 2014, well over 182 

days after the first dispositional order. At the time of the adjudication, the trial court found 

statutory grounds for taking jurisdiction of the minor children under MCL 712A.2(b) because 

respondent failed to provide necessary care and respondent’s home was an unfit environment, 

based on DB’s injuries that occurred just 13 days after his birth. In its opinion, the trial court 

found a ground for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) based on its finding that a 

condition that led to adjudication continued to exist in regard to respondent’s inappropriate 

parenting based on continued problems with physical abuse and inappropriate physical 

discipline. The trial court based that finding on the fact that on May 22, 2014, DB was found 

with bruises on his face, ears, side, back, and stomach. Although respondent argues on appeal 

that IB caused DB’s injuries rather that respondent, they occurred at a time when respondent was 

responsible for DB’s care and support the trial court’s conclusion that respondent had failed to 

rectify the conditions that lead to adjudication despite the passage of two years and her 

participation in extensive services. Further, IB reported that respondent hit her during parenting 

time, and multiple persons testified that BB and respondent fought physically. The trial court 

thus did not clearly err in finding that this statutory ground was proven by clear and convincing 

evidence. MCR 3.977(K); Trejo Minors, 462 Mich at 356-357.

Regarding MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii), the trial court found that respondent was still 

permitting the children’s father to contact them and still had issues with domestic violence 

concerning the children’s father, even after respondent’s plan was updated to require that she not 

allow such contact, and even after the children’s father’s rights were terminated. This finding 

was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not clearly erroneous. Although 

respondent argues on appeal that the trial court erred in concluding that the children’s father had 

not moved to Florida and that the parents would remain in contact, the trial court found, based on 

the evidence presented, that the children’s father had contact with respondent throughout this 

case and that he still had contact with respondent at the time of the termination hearing, and that 

the evidence supported the inference they would remain in contact. This finding was also not 

clearly erroneous and supports the trial court’s finding of a statutory ground for termination 

under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii).2

 MCR 3.977(K); Trejo Minors, 462 Mich at 356-357. 

 

2

 We do not find that the trial court’s reference to the alleged sale of respondent’s prescription 

drugs would have satisfied this statutory ground. The home health nurse’s testimony was that 

respondent and the children’s father had one argument, 8 to 10 months before the termination 

hearing, concerning who would sell her prescription drugs. On the other hand, numerous pill 

counts conducted by caseworkers, as well as drug screens, seemed to indicate that she was taking 

her prescription drugs as prescribed. In sum, evidence of respondent’s sale of her prescription 

drugs was considerably less than “clear and convincing.” See In re Martin, 450 Mich 204, 227; 

533 NW2d 399 (1995), cert den sub nom Martin v Martin, 516 US 1113; 116 S Ct 912; 133 L Ed 
-8- 

 Regarding MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), there was evidence that at the time of the termination 

hearing respondent had not rectified her issues with physical abuse and domestic violence. 

Additionally, respondent allowed unapproved contact between the children and their father, 

failed to understand how harmful this contact was for IB, coached IB and BB about what they 

should not say to caseworkers, and interfered with IB and DB’s relationships with their foster 

parents. A trial court may rely on a respondent’s history of failing to provide care and custody in 

finding that there was no reasonable expectation that the respondent would be able to provide 

proper care and custody within a reasonable time. In re Archer, 277 Mich App 71, 75-76; 744 

NW2d 1 (2007). The trial court did not clearly err in finding a statutory ground for termination 

under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). MCR 3.977(K); Trejo Minors, 462 Mich at 356-357. 

 Finally, the trial court also found that under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j), there was clear and 

convincing evidence of a reasonable likelihood of harm to the minor children if they were 

returned to respondent because DB was harmed after the minor children were previously 

returned to respondent. As discussed above, there was significant evidence that respondent 

allowed father, a person who struggled with domestic violence and drugs and who had not 

participated in his treatment plan, to have unauthorized contact with BB. And there was 

evidence that respondent (at a minimum) failed to prevent significant injury to DB while he was 

in her care. A trial court may rely on a parent’s history in determining that a child would be 

harmed if returned the parent’s home. Archer, 277 Mich App at 75-76. Further, Bertapelle 

testified that she believed that the minor children would be at a risk of harm if they were returned 

to respondent. The trial court did not clearly err in finding a statutory ground for termination 

under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). MCR 3.977(K); Trejo Minors, 462 Mich at 356-357. 

 Although respondent argues that she completed her agency agreement and was able to 

show significant improvement in removing the barriers to reunification, mere participation and 

benefit from services is insufficient; rather, a parent must demonstrate sufficient compliance with 

and benefit from services to address the problem targeted by those services. In re Frey, 297 

Mich App 242, 248; 824 NW2d 569 (2012). As discussed above, respondent did not address the 

problems targeted by her services in regard to parenting and domestic violence. Further, she 

failed to comply with the portions of her treatment plan regarding contact between the children 

and their father. We find no clear error in the trial court’s findings regarding the statutory 

grounds for termination. MCR 3.977(K); Trejo Minors, 462 Mich at 356-357. 

III. BEST-INTEREST DETERMINATION 

 Although not raised by respondent, we note that the trial court did not clearly err in 

finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the minor children’s best interests. 

MCR 3.977(K); Trejo Minors, 462 Mich at 356-357. The trial court found by a preponderance 

of the evidence that it was in the minor children’s best interests to terminate respondent’s 

parental rights based on respondent’s history with domestic violence and physical abuse, the 

minor children’s need for permanency, respondent’s inability to provide the children with an 

2d 843 (1996) (defining clear and convincing evidence). However, even removing this factor 

from consideration, sufficient evidence remained to support the trial court’s finding concerning 

this statutory ground. 
-9- 

appropriate home for “many months,” and the possibility for adoption. See In re Olive/Metts 

Minors, 297 Mich App 35, 41-42; 823 NW2d 144 (2012); In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 

NW2d 182 (2013). We see no error in such a finding. 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra 

/s/ William B. Murphy 

/s/ Jane E. Markey