IN RE SAMANTHA PRYS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SAMANTHA PRYS and ASHLEY
PRYS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 15, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 207126
Kent Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-000378 NA
TIMOTHY S. PRYS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SARAH PRYS,
Respondent.
Before: Griffin, P.J, and Neff and Bandstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a juvenile court order terminating his parental
rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) (the parent,
without regard to intent, fails to provide proper care for the child and there is no reasonable expectation
that the parent will be able to provide care within a reasonable time). We affirm.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that this 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). Although the record shows that respondent-appellant attended more parenting
classes than was required and faithfully attended visitation with the children, the record also reveals that
respondent-appellant failed to prepare himself to provide a proper home for the children. Based on the
record, respondent-appellant had emotional problems that interfered with his ability to deal adequately
-1
with stress, with relationships, and with the daily problems required of a parent. Although respondent
appellant’s most recent counselor, Robin Woolley, believed that respondent-appellant had made
progress and that there was no evidence that respondent-appellant could not be a parent, Woolley was
not aware that the children had some special needs and had exhibited behavioral problems. Nor was
Woolley aware that, after being caught stealing from one employer, respondent-appellant was
discovered stealing from his next employer. Respondent-appellant’s testimony about not knowing what
he signed and the other contradictory statements that he provided under oath made it clear that, not only
was respondent-appellant not credible, but he did not take responsibility for his actions. There was
other evidence of respondent-appellant’s immaturity and failure to accept responsibility. He fails to pay
rent or utilities at his p
arents’ home where he lives. Respondent-appellant had moved his pregnant
girlfriend into his parents’ home; she gave birth to his third child just as this case was coming to a crucial
decision-making hearing. It is clear that respondent-appellant continues to show a lack of maturity and
poor judgment. Further, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of his parental rights was
clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re
Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the juvenile court did not
err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
We affirm.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
-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.