IN RE GLEN DE'ANDRE SEALS III
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of GLEN DE’ANDRE SEALS III,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 8, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 248665
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-402690
GLEN SEALS II,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Griffin and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974;1 In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The condition that led to adjudication was respondent’s inability to
provide proper care for his child, in part because of his being arrested for possession of illegal
substances. At the time of termination, respondent was unable to demonstrate that he could
provide a safe and stable living environment or that he could maintain regular employment.
Furthermore, respondent did not substantially comply with his treatment plan and did not comply
with the terms of his probation. Consequently, the trial court did not clearly err when it
concluded that the conditions that led to adjudication continued to exist at the time of termination
and there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions would be rectified within a reasonable
time. Moreover, respondent’s wholesale denial of substance abuse problems, despite two drug
1
Effective May 1, 2003, the court rules governing proceedings regarding juveniles were
amended and moved to the new MCR subchapter 3.900. The provisions on termination of
parental rights are now found in MCR 3.977. Specifically, the court rule governing the standard
of review is found at MCR 3.977(J). In this opinion, we refer to the rules in effect at the time of
the order terminating parental rights.
-1-
related convictions, and his failure to participate in treatment, precluded respondent from
providing proper care and custody of the child and created a risk of harm should reunification
occur. Accordingly, the court did not clearly err in finding that a statutory basis for termination
of parental rights had been established.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357;
612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental
rights to the child.
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.
