IN RE BRODY TREMAIN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRODY TREMAIN, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 17, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 250115
Dickinson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-000504-NA
STEVEN TREMAIN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JENNY TREMAIN,
Respondent.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and O'Connell and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to his minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error.
MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). If the trial court
determines that petitioner established the existence of one or more statutory grounds for
termination by clear and convincing evidence, then the trial court must terminate respondent’s
parental rights unless it determines that to do so is clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review for clear
error the trial court’s decision with regard to the child’s best interests. Trejo, supra at 356-357.
After reviewing the record brought before us for review, we are satisfied that the trial
court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by
clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161
(1989). In the instant case, testimony and evidence presented at trial established that when
authorities removed Brody from respondent-appellant’s custody and care, he maintained an
unsanitary, unsafe and utterly unacceptable living environment for his then two-year-old son.
-1-
Indeed, hypodermic syringes, tin foil packets that once contained heroin, prescription pain
medication, and other drug paraphernalia littered respondent’s home, and some of these
dangerous items were discovered in Brody’s own bedroom. Respondent-appellant subsequently
pleaded guilty to delivery of less than fifty grams of a controlled substance and was sentenced to
twenty-one months to thirty years’ imprisonment. He was serving his sentence during the
pendency and ultimate conclusion of the child protective proceedings. Consequently, at the time
of trial, respondent-appellant remained incarcerated and thus did not have a suitable residence in
which to return Brody. His earliest possible release date was in December 2003 provided he was
granted parole.
Perhaps most telling was respondent-appellant’s own testimony that he had “nothing.”
Respondent-appellant testified that he did not have a vehicle, a bank account, a savings account
or a residence. Consequently, he was no closer to providing an acceptable living environment
for Brody at the close of the termination proceedings than he was when the FIA initially became
involved. We do acknowledge that, while in prison, respondent-appellant maintained a drug free
existence and took advantage of rehabilitation services. However, while we do not discount
respondent-appellant’s efforts in this regard, we do find that the trial court properly observed that
respondent-appellant did so within the strict confines of the prison environment and not
necessarily of his own volition.
Additionally, we find that the evidence produced did not demonstrate that termination of
respondent-appellant’s parental rights was antithetical to Brody’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 356-357. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights, and we thus affirm the trial court’s decision in every
respect.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
