This is the Brief Nicole's Attorney Provided to the Court of Appeals.

Here is the order from the Court of Appeals over Grandparent Visitations.

The Court of Appeals made their decision without any input from our side. They made their decision only on the attorney for Nicole's,  twisting of the facts.

Now I will talk about some of  concerns the attorney for Nicole presented. Again the regressive behaviors are mentioned, who talks about these regressive behaviors?  Nicole's co-workers and friends of course, as I said before they lack the insight to even consider these behaviors happened because Alyssa and Amber wanted to come back home with grandma and grandpa. Why do you think Alyssa had a "melt down" June 26, 2007? This was 2 1/2 months after she could no longer see us. It certainly wasn't because of the contact it was because of the lack of contact.

She mentions there are concerns we might let our daughter have contact with our granddaughters. We broke off all contact with our daughter June 15, 2005 when she decided to start telling her lies along with the lies and fraudulent information CPS used to remove the children from our home. The only contact I have had with Erica since June 2005 was June 28, 2006 which I had no choice because Lacy (CPS) wouldn't return my phone calls so we could get an update in regards to what is happening.

Isn't it amazing how even this attorney twists the facts. This attorney states we refused to comply with a court order in the termination proceedings. First off there was never such a court order and second off we weren't part of the termination proceedings. The termination proceedings were May 10, 2006 and at that time we hadn't seen Alyssa and Amber for almost a year. Even so the only reason the children were remove from our care was because Erica didn't want them with us any longer. She realized we weren't going to let her do things, especially letting the boyfriend have contact with the children without consequences.

Now this attorney talks about psychological damage and confusion. Lets step back for a second, Alyssa and Amber didn't have any psychological problems until after they were unjustly removed from our care. They weren't on any mind altering medications at that time, they certainly are now. Yes, they are being drugged so they can cope with the injustice that was bestowed them at the hands of Newaygo County CPS. Confusion? The only confusion they have is why they can't see grandma and grandpa.

Now this attorney's "statement of facts". I won't argue with he fact there has been some bonding but I will argue with her statement where she says the girls want to stay with Nicole forever. That statement may have been true prior to March 2007, At that time Alyssa and Amber were probably under the impression we didn't want anything to do with them. After we started getting visitation with them, they were told we were going to adopt them, they wanted to come back home with grandma and grandpa.

The trial court didn't remove the children from our care back in July 2005, CPS did. This decision was appealed to the Foster Care Review Board (FCRB) and this board sided with CPS. We were never noticed about this hearing until after it started. There was never any agreement between us and the agency. This attorney certainly know how to twist fact. Some of her statements of facts, I really have to laugh at. The trial court terminated MCI's authority  over our granddaughter before there was any consideration in regards to Nicole's consent to adopt. By all rights MCI had no authority to even consider this consent  for Nicole because they had already been terminated and the children were wards of the court.

Of course the children's therapists said what they said. They both have used misleading statements in the past, especially what causes Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Should any of the therapists statements be considered as facts without any doubts? After all they are both co-workers and friends of Nicole.

The actual record is what it is and most of what this attorney put in this brief is not supported by the actual facts of this case...