IN RE TROY WILLIAM HAVLICHEK MINOR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS __________________________________________ In the Matter of TROY WILLIAM HAVLICHEK, Minor. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED June 6, 1997 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 192695 Genesee Probate Court LC No. 94-100198-NA TROY WILLIAM WELCH, Respondent-Appellant. Before: Saad, P.J., and Hood and McDonald, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent appeals as of right from the probate court order which denied his motion for rehearing of an earlier order terminating his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(ii), (g) and (j). We affirm. Respondent failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that he was denied due process because he did not present this specific issue to the probate court. In re Hildebrant, 216 Mich App 384, 389; 548 NW2d 715 (1996). In any event, we are not persuaded that respondent was denied fundamental fairness in the proceedings relative to the termination of his parental rights. In re Brock, 442 Mich 101, 111; 499 NW2d 752 (1993). We also find that respondent has failed to demonstrate that the probate court clearly erred in finding that at least one statutory ground for termination was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989); In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 25; 501 NW2d 182 (1993). The probate court’s oral opinion sufficiently disclosed the specific reasons and statutory grounds of the decision. MCR 5.974(G). Further, respondent failed to show that termination of his parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. In re Hall-Smith, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 195833, issued 3/25/97), slip op p 3. Thus, the probate court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5). Finally, we hold that -1­ respondent has demonstrated no basis for reversing the probate court’s order denying the rehearing motion. In re Toler, 193 Mich App 474, 477-478; 484 NW2d 672 (1992). Affirmed. /s/ Henry William Saad /s/ Harold Hood /s/ Gary R. McDonald -2­

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.