PONTIAC, Mich. – A judge dramatically reduced the bond for an Oakland County mother who is accused of abandoning her three children, leaving them to live alone for years inside a filthy home.
Kelli Marie Bryant, 34, of Pontiac, is facing three counts of first-degree child abuse after police said they found three of her children — a 15-year-old boy, a 13-year-old girl, and a 12-year-old girl — living alone in Pontiac.
Click here to see all of our previous coverage of this case.
Police said the conditions inside the home were deplorable: trash piled four feet high, the toilet overflowing, and feces in the bathtub and throughout the home.
During Bryant’s arraignment on Feb. 20, 2025, Oakland County Judge Ronda M. Fowlkes Gross set a $250 million bond, calling Bryant a flight risk.
But on Friday, March 7, during a hearing to address bond, Bryant’s bond was dropped to $50,000, with several conditions.
Here’s what happened during Friday’s proceedings:
Debate about residency
“I know the People will argue that it should be a cash bond, but my position is that the only time that the court could do a cash bond is if the court finds either that she’s a flight risk or that she poses a danger to the community at large,” defense attorney Cecilia Quirindongo-Baunsoe said.
Judge Cynthia Thomas Walker said one of the primary concerns that led to the $250 million bond in the first place was the lack of a stable address for Bryant.
“That was one of the things that was the focus of the arraigning judge,” Walker said.
“That’s correct, Your Honor, and Ms. Bryant has a stable residence,” Quirindongo-Baunsoe said. “She had a stable residents before her arrest, as well. Now, of course, there are additional concerns because of the publicity that this particular case has received.”
Quirindongo-Baunsoe said she doesn’t want to put any of Bryant’s personal information — such as her home address and who she lives with — on the record because of how much attention the case has generated.
Quirindongo-Baunsoe said she submitted written statements from people who would be willing to keep an eye on Bryant during her release, and she also said a GPS tether would solve concerns about the court knowing Bryant’s location at all times.
Assistant Prosecutor Kanika Ferency argued that the person who wrote the letter vouching for Bryant is not the person she would be living with if she got out on bond.
“What the people find troubling is that the individual that the defendant is being asked to be released to and reside with isn’t the one that wrote the letter,” Ferency said. “That individual is not vouching for her, and I don’t believe that that individual has appeared in court and is willing to provide that voucher to the court. That is a concern, and it actually speaks to the high level of instability for Ms. Bryant.”
Quirindongo-Baunsoe responded that the person Bryant would be living with is willing to vouch for Bryant, but that person wants to speak to Bryant first, and there have been some logistical roadblocks.
“On the issue of where she will be staying, the court needs to be convinced that this is a stable residence if there are any modifications to the bond where there’s a potential that she could be released,” Walker said. “I understand the nature of people being hesitant to come forward, given the amount of publicity, but the court has to be convinced that Ms. Bryant would return to court and also that she will not be a danger.”
Flight risk
The defense next addressed the matter of Bryant returning for future court appearances.
Quirindongo-Baunsoe pointed out that Bryant has no criminal history. She also said that Bryant paid for a Lyft ride to go to the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office to talk to police and turn herself in when they called her about the children.
“I don’t have any reason to believe she has (anywhere) else to go,” Quirindongo-Baunsoe said. “She’s a Pontiac resident. She’s been here her whole life, and I think if she wanted to flee the state or go somewhere, she’d have done that already.”
Issues to be addressed
Walker listed a number of matters that are not being disputed, and the prosecution agreed:
-
That Bryant turned herself in to law enforcement.
-
That Bryant has no criminal history.
-
That there’s no record of prior non-appearance or flight to avoid prosecution.
Walker said the issues that needed to be addressed during Friday’s hearing are:
-
Employment status.
-
Financial history as it relates to an ability to post bond.
-
Ties to the community.
-
Ties to family members.
-
Residency (which had already been discussed).
Personal bond issues
Quirindongo-Baunsoe spoke about Bryant’s medical history and said Bryant has family members in Pontiac.
“Ms. Bryant absolutely does have a lot of support in the community,” Quirindongo-Baunsoe said.
She continued that Bryant has no history of substance use or abuse, including marijuana or alcohol.
Before her arrest, Bryant was employed and paid through the state of Michigan, according to Quirindongo-Baunsoe.
“Ms. Bryant did inform me of who the person at the state of Michigan that was responsible for her was, and she provided me with that name,” Quirindongo-Baunsoe said. “Unfortunately, it’s a very common name within the Department of Health and Human Services so I was not able to obtain specific information.”
Quirindongo-Baunsoe said the amount that Bryant made at her job would not be enough to post bond, and no family members would have the necessary funds, either.
Prosecution response
During her response, Ferency pointed out the seriousness of the charges and said there is a “very high likelihood” of conviction and significant time behind bars.
“The People do not dispute that Ms. Bryant turned herself in and that she cooperated with law enforcement,” Ferency said. “But as the court is also aware, that does not equate any sort of assurances that she will appear in court.”
Ferency said the people don’t view Bryant as a “reliable source of information.”
“She has a history of concealing and deceiving,” Ferency said, when speaking about the defense’s claims that Bryant needed to be released for medical reasons.
“Regardless of that situation, I would be hard-pressed not to address the reason why we’re here today,” Ferency said. “The reason we’re here today is because defendant did not provide her own children, the victims here, with basic medical care, basic needs, for years, and this irony of her condition right now is not lost on me, and it seems like she had and is being treated appropriately at the clinic at the county jail.”
Ferency also said there hasn’t been any proof provided about Bryant’s employment status.
“So, again, the People do have the concern that defendant is not a reliable source of information,” Ferency said. “What the People can confirm is that Ms. Bryant abandoned the victims in this case in an unlivable residence where several rent payments lapsed.”
Ferency also disputed that Bryant has support in the community.
“She has a history of deceiving those who were attempting to support her for years,” Ferency said. “It is difficult for me to imagine that all of her beliefs about her alleged support systems have completely changed within two weeks of her being in custody. And, honestly, it does feel self-serving, Your Honor.”
She said the person who vouched for Bryant in a letter wants to remain anonymous.
“How is that considered a voucher, or a support for the defendant?” Ferency asked. “That individual also admits that the defendant lied about the victims’ whereabouts. They also stated that the defendant knew that this individual was there if she needed help, but defendant never reached out. This is all very troubling to the People, and it is telling about the serious instability of defendant’s support and her willingness to rely on that support. No one is willing to vouch for the defendant.”
Prosecutors believe Bryant is a flight risk due to the level of attention on the case and her lack of community ties, Ferency said.
“Most importantly, we believe that she does pose a danger to the community,” Ferency said. “Specifically, the victims, who are members of the community, who she egregiously and intentionally neglected for years.”
Ferency also said prosecutors believe the risk of re-offending is high.
Bond requests
The prosecution requested a “high cash bail,” no cash/surety, no 10% provision.
The defense requested a personal recognizance bond, with conditions including a steel cuff tether, pretrial supervision, mental health treatment, and drug screens.
Judge’s bond decision
Walker said the purpose of bond is to ensure a defendant returns to court and to protect the community and the victims.
“At this point, I have reviewed all of the factors that the court is to take into consideration in determining the proper bail,” Walker said.
“I am still not satisfied that the court can at this point say that there is a guarantee of a return to court. The defendant has not been a flight risk in the past, however, the potential penalty in this case is quite high, given the nature of the charge. The protection of the public and the victims is also a concern.”
Walker said she shares some of the concerns mentioned by the arraigning judge about Bryant possibly reaching out to the children in the case to try to influence testimony.
“I realize that there may be a need to do further review of the bond, but I do find that the court has an obligation to set a reasonable bond, and the current bond amounts to a denial of bond,” Walker said. “So what I’m going to do is modify, based on the information that we have that is verified.”
Walker reduced the bond to a $50,000 cash bond, no surety, with the following conditions:
-
Bryant will be on pretrial services supervision.
-
No alcohol or illegal drug use.
-
No possession of a weapon.
-
No assaultive conduct of any sort while the case is pending.
-
No contact with any child under the age of 18 years old.
-
Absolutely no contact with the victims in the case, including personal contact, phone calls, text messages, and reaching out to parties who have control of the children.
-
A home confinement electronic monitoring device.
-
Bryant can only leave home for medical emergencies, court appearances, court-ordered testing, and employment if it can be verified (it is not verified at this point).
-
Any other travel requires permission from the court.
-
No returning to the address where the children were found by police.
-
No returning to the address of the victims.
-
Any changes of address would have to be provided to court within 24 hours.
“I will note that Ms. Bryant be aware that if you violate any condition of release, you would be subject to arrest without a warrant and may have your bond forfeited, revoked, new conditions imposed, in addition to any other penalties if you are found in contempt of court,” Walker said.
The next court date is scheduled for 2 p.m. April 15, via Zoom.
发表回复