IN RE KAITLIN REANNE AIKENS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KAITLIN REANNE AIKENS,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 27, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 249639
Cass Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-000321-NA
KENNETH AIKENS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Griffin and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the circuit court order terminating his parental rights
to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). Because the trial court did not clearly err in
finding that there was no reasonable expectation that the respondent would be able to provide
proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the child’s age, we affirm.
The circuit court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory ground for termination
was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The child’s mother’s parental rights had been terminated.
Respondent was unable to sever his relationship with the minor child’s mother, though he
understood that her presence was a barrier to reunification with the child. Record evidence
revealed continued contact between respondent and the child’s mother, notwithstanding the
court’s directive to the contrary. The expert opinion of record is that respondent’s personality is
such that he can not deny contact with the child’s mother. The evidence supported the finding
that, without regard to intent, respondent would be unable to provide proper care or custody for
the child within a reasonable time. 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
-1-
re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Therefore, the circuit court did not err
in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the minor child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Richard A. 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.
