IN RE MIRACLE MARY TYNER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MIRACLE MARY TYNER, a/k/a
BABY GIRL DOE, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 6, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 245380
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-406997
KEITH MACO TYNER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
AUDRITA NICOLE LYNN,
Respondent.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Griffin and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant, Keith Maco Tyner, appeals from the order of the trial court
terminating his parental rights to his minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii). We
affirm.
Respondent-appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding that clear and
convincing evidence supported termination of his parental rights. Contrary to respondentappellant’s contentions, ample evidence existed on the record to support the trial court’s
decision.
The mother of the child delivered the baby without medical assistance in the bathroom of
the home that she shared with respondent-appellant and their three other young children and then
put the baby in the family’s trashcan and placed the lid on the can. Though the couple thereafter
sought medical attention for the child’s mother, it was not until they reached the hospital that
authorities were informed of the existence of the child, and even then, the location of the child
was discovered by police without assistance from the parents.
-1-
Respondent-appellant contends that he had no idea the child’s mother was pregnant, that
she had delivered a baby on that day, or that she had placed it in the trashcan, and he therefore
cannot be found to be culpable for the neglect of the child. Respondent-appellant shared the
home with the child’s mother, had regular sexual relations with her without using birth control,
and was present in the couple’s home on the night before the birth as she labored to deliver the
child. If respondent-appellant’s explanation is true, then the trial court correctly noted that his
total oblivion to the extreme circumstances indicates a complete lack of awareness,
communication, and basic observation. His inability or unwillingness to take note of the
pregnancy and to take steps to ensure the safe birth of the child evidences a deficiency so
dramatic that there is a reasonable likelihood that the child would again suffer neglect if returned
to his care. The trial court therefore did not err in finding that the statutory ground for
termination was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I), now MCR
3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Similarly, termination of
respondent-appellant’s parental rights was not contrary to the best interests of the child. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
