IN RE DEAN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TRAVIS DEAN and SAMANTHA
DEAN, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 23, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 208592
Midland Juvenile Court
LC No. 97-010003 NA
LAURENCE J. DEAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHRISTIE DEAN and VICTOR SMITH,
Respondents.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Cavanagh and Griffin, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant (“respondent”) appeals as of right a juvenile court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
First, contrary to respondent’s position, it is axiomatic that where, as here, termination of
parental rights are sought by the petitioner at the initial dispositional hearing following an adjudication
that the petitioner is not required to have provided services to the involved parent. Rather, if the juvenile
court properly finds a ground for termination of parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence,
then it shall order such a termination at that point unless the juvenile court also finds that this is clearly
not in the best interest of the involved child or children. MCR 5.974(D). Nevertheless, we note that
the record indicates that petitioner did provide services to respondent.
-1
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Conley, 216 Mich App 41, 42;
549 NW2d 353 (1996). Indeed, these findings were strongly supported by evidence of respondent’s
psychological and emotional problems including episodes of violence and displays of an extreme
temper, respondent’s serious history of crime and problems with substance abuse, and other factors.
Further, respondent failed to show that termination of his parental rights was clearly not in the
best interests of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222
Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). We recognize that respondent may well love his
children. However, particularly in light of his failure to make substantial progress in counseling, there is
strong evidence that he is unlikely to properly parent the minor children. Thus, respondent has not
established that the juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights to the minor children. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
-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.
