DAY/PRICE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of S.D., J.S.P., D.D.P., B.Y.M.P., and
A.W.-N.P., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 20, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 237577
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-367145
SHELLY LYNN DAY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KEVIN MCGRUDER,
Respondent.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Murphy and Cavanagh, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court orders terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b). We affirm.
This case first came to the trial court in June 1998, when the oldest child reported that her
stepfather, who was murdered during the pendency of this case, beat her. The responding
officers found that the other children were dirty and there was no food in the home or diapers for
the infant. Throughout the case, respondent-appellant made some progress and complied with
many parts of the parent/agency agreement. She did not consistently maintain suitable housing
for the five minor children, however. More disturbing was her failure to comply with the terms
of the court-ordered weekly drug testing. Respondent-appellant tested positive for four
controlled substances during this case and had many drug tests come back with evidence of
adulteration.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory ground for termination was
established by clear and convincing evidence. See MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
-1-
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). A failure to provide suitable housing and to comply with other
aspects of a parent/agency agreement has been held to be a failure to provide proper care and
custody. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 360-363; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Further, the evidence did not
show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the children’s
best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 356-357. Thus, the trial court did not err in
terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-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.
