Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


In the Matter of SHAINA DAVIDSON and CASEY DAVIDSON, Minors.

FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, Petitioner-Appellee, v TRINA LYNN KLEIN, Respondent-Appellant, and CHAD DAVIDSON, Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED July 7, 2005

No. 259205 Berrien Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 04-000038

Before: Cooper, P.J., and Fort Hood and R.S. Gribbs*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant Trina Lynn Klein appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), (j), and (l). We affirm. We review a trial court's decision to terminate parental rights for clear error.1 If the trial court determines that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or more statutory grounds for termination, the court must terminate the respondent's parental rights unless it finds from the record evidence that termination is clearly not in the child's best

1

MCR 3.997(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).

* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1-

interests.2 We review the trial court's determination regarding the child's best interests for clear error.3 The trial court properly found that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. The record revealed that, despite receiving more than two years of services, respondent-appellant repeatedly exposed her daughters to abusive men and situations. Respondent-appellant allowed her children to be in contact with a man who was convicted of sexually abusing their sister, who is not a part of this appeal. Respondentappellant's parental rights over that child were terminated in separate proceedings for this conduct. Respondent-appellant also allowed the children to spend time with their father despite a court order prohibiting such contact. Although there was some evidence that respondentappellant was making progress in counseling, her actions demonstrate that she did not benefit from the services she received. Furthermore, although there was evidence of a bond between respondent-appellant and her children, the record, as a whole, did not demonstrate that termination was contrary to the children's best interests. Affirmed. /s/ Jessica R. Cooper /s/ Karen M. Fort Hood /s/ Roman S. Gribbs

2 3

MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Id. at 356-357. -2-




Download IN RE DAVIDSON MINORS.pdf

Michigan Law