IN RE KOTY DUBAY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of K. D., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 19, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 235059
Bay Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-006898-NA
SUSAN MARIE REINHARDT, a/k/a SUSAN
DUBAY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GREGORY DUBAY,
Respondent.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Griffin and G. S. Buth*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to her minor child. We affirm.
The trial court properly found that respondent-appellant had failed to provide the
necessary care, custody, and protection of the child and there was no reasonable likelihood that
she would be able to do so within a reasonable time pursuant to subsection 19b(3)(g). This
finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence. The child was seriously injured while
under her care. While in the respondent’s care, the child was significantly developmentally
delayed and when removed form the respondent’s care, the child made a remarkable
improvement that demonstrated that his developmental delay was environmental, not genetic.
While in the respondent’s care the child was dirty and not well cared for. Respondent has failed
to provide adequate housing. She lives in an overcrowded apartment, which she admits is not
adequate for the child and she plans to continue living there as long as possible. In other words,
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
this respondent has failed to provide proper care for the child, nor has she taken any steps that
might have assisted her in doing so.
The trial court did not err in finding that the 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). Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondentappellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the best interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5);
In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The trial court therefore did not err
in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ George S. Buth
-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.
