In re CR
| Decision Date | 27 November 2001 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 228975.,Docket No. 228856 |
| Citation | 646 N.W.2d 506,250 Mich. App. 185 |
| Parties | In the Matter of C.R., C.D.R., A.L.R., and L.B., Minors. Family Independence Agency, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Sherry Bowman, Respondent-Appellant, and Chevy Richardson, Respondent. In the Matter of C.R., C.D.R., and A.L.R., Minors. Family Independence Agency, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Chevy Richardson, Respondent-Appellant, and Sherry Bowman, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Gary L. Veurink, Muskegon, for Sherry Bowman.
Gerald W. Gibbs, Muskegon Heights, for Chevy Richardson.
Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and WHITBECK and COOPER, JJ.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents Sherry Bowman and Chevy Richardson appeal as of right from an order terminating their parental rights to the minor children pursuant to M.C.L. § 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (c)(ii), and (g). We affirm.
The Family Independence Agency (FIA) intervened in this case after it became concerned that Bowman was not caring for the children because of her "excessive and ongoing drinking and drug abuse." FIA caseworkers also believed that Bowman had previously abused and neglected her children. They noted that A.L.R. had tested positive for alcohol and cocaine at birth and both parents had lengthy criminal histories, which had forced the children to reside with other relatives on occasion. Previous services offered to Bowman to improve her parenting skills had made no significant improvement in her ability to care for her children or remain sober.
After the FIA filed the original petition asserting the allegations, above, in August 1998, the parents and the FIA reached an agreement on how to proceed. The agreement provided that (1) the FIA would dismiss the allegations concerning Richardson, (2) Bowman would enter a no-contest plea to the allegations in the petition, (3) the family court would take jurisdiction over the children, and (4) the children would be placed with Richardson subject to a variety of conditions, including his participation in drug testing and other FIA services. When the parties placed this agreement on the record on the day set for the adjudication, Alan Rapoport, the attorney representing the children, indicated that he found the agreement acceptable. The family court immediately advised Bowman of her rights and heard testimony from a child protective services worker, who testified about the allegations in the petition regarding Bowman. The prosecutor representing the FIA also introduced into evidence medical records documenting instances of Bowman's drug and alcohol abuse and A.L.R.'s health problems. The family court then accepted Bowman's no-contest plea in accordance with the agreement, ruling from the bench:
Very well, the Court is satisfied and does accept the plea of no contest by Sherry Richardson [sic], to the complaint. The Court does take jurisdiction of this matter, and of the parties, and of the minor children. The Court will dismiss the petition in so far as it relates to Mr. Chevy Richardson. The children are referred, or continued in the placement with FIA, which I understand has now agreed to switch the children['s placement] to Chevy Richardson.
The order the family court subsequently entered indicated that it had found that the children came within its jurisdiction and ordered the FIA to place them with Richardson. Tracking the terms of the parties' agreement closely, the family court ordered Richardson to "submit to random drug screening at the request of FIA," indicated that the FIA would refer the family to the Families First program, and scheduled the dispositional hearing. Though the order did not use any language specifically dismissing Richardson as a respondent in the proceedings, it stated that the family court had made factual findings and legal conclusions on the record at the adjudication, incorporating those findings and conclusions—including Richardson's dismissal—by reference. Both parents subsequently entered into parenting agreements with the FIA in which they pledged to take advantage of a variety of services, improve their parenting skills, provide a healthy environment for the children, obtain employment, and protect L.B. from further sexual abuse.5 Unfortunately, this arrangement did not work well. In one instance, caseworkers observed Bowman unconscious, lying in the doorway to her home, smelling of alcohol. The children were inside the home, unattended and crying, and Richardson was nowhere to be found. When Richardson finally returned home, he admitted that Bowman had been drinking, he refused to submit to a Breathalyzer test, and was uncooperative with the police who had responded to the situation. L.B. would not discuss this incident with caseworkers because she was afraid that Richardson, her stepfather, would "beat her butt." At the emergency review hearing, the parents refused to acknowledge the continuing problems in their home. The family court allowed the children to remain with Richardson, but ordered Bowman out of the home and ordered both parents to engage in drug treatment, to submit to hair follicle tests to detect drug use, and to comply with the parenting agreement.
The problems did not end with this one incident. On a separate occasion, two caseworkers made an unannounced visit to the home to check on the children. Although they could hear the children inside, no one would open the door. Finally, when one of the children let the caseworkers into the home, they found the home in disarray, dirty, with no obvious adult supervision for the children. The caseworkers found Richardson's ninety-three-year-old grandmother sleeping in another room, but she was difficult to rouse and was disoriented when she finally did awaken. In March 1999, Bowman was sentenced to four months in prison for an assault on two police officers, a crime she had committed the previous summer. That same month the FIA removed the children from Richardson's care.
Richardson also refused to comply with the parenting agreement and the family court's drug testing order, going so far as to shave all the hair on his body before he appeared for a hair follicle test. Richardson never obtained employment and the condition of the home did not improve. In summer 1999, L.B. alleged that Richardson had sexually abused her, but Richardson told her not to speak with the caseworkers about it. L.B. eventually told caseworkers that she was afraid of Richardson and that she did not want to see him anymore. On the times he did submit to testing, Richardson continued to test positive for drugs. Not only did Richardson appear under the influence of drugs or alcohol during one visit with the children, but a drug test as late as January 2000 revealed that he had used marijuana.
The FIA filed a termination petition in February 2000, essentially alleging that all the help offered to the parents had made no difference in their ability to care for their children. Further, the parents' substance abuse problems had continued, they had never acknowledged that L.B. had been sexually abused, Richardson had threatened the children to keep them from talking to caseworkers, and the parents had never complied with the parenting agreement.
The FIA caseworker who filed the termination petition did not believe that any additional services or any additional time would make it safe for the children to return to their parents, which made termination in their best interests. The FIA visitation coordinator reported that the children had mentioned that Richardson was threatening. She had also personally observed that Bowman was unresponsive to the children during visits and that she did not have a "healthy" bond with them.
A psychologist who had counseled the children and Richardson testified on behalf of the FIA, noting that the children all exhibited symptoms of severe emotional problems related to abuse and neglect and that they reported violence, sexual abuse, and drug use in their home. The psychologist stated that Richardson had admitted selling drugs out of his home, he had poor judgment, and he lacked the capacity to take responsibility for his problems or his family's problems. She did not believe that Richardson would be able to care safely for the children.
As for Bowman, the psychologist recounted that Bowman had appeared for an evaluation but left before completing the interview, shouting expletives as she walked out the door. Psychological testing revealed that Bowman had only a "very poor" prognosis for being able to change. The psychologist also supported termination as the best course of action for the children, especially in light of the parents' inability to make meaningful change within a reasonable amount of time, if at all.
In contrast to this testimony, Bowman and Richardson both testified that they had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- WPW Acquisition Co. v. City of Troy
- In re Carrington H.
- In re Sanders
- In re Utrera
-
The Crab Fisherman and His Children: a Constitutional Compass for the Non-offending Parent in Child Protection Cases
...constitutional challenge); see also Sankaran, supra note 69, at 22 (criticizing as unconstitutional Michigan's holding in In re C.R., 646 N.W.2d 506 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002), which he interprets as allowing adjudication based on the acts of one parent). [125]See Sankaran, supra note 69, at 24;......