IN RE SARAI MARIE ASHFORD MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SARAI MARIE ASHFORD,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 19, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
KATRINA OLIVER, f/k/a KATRINA MARIE
ASHFORD,
No. 249804
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-050421-NA
Respondent-Appellant,
and
HAYWARD OLIVER, JR.,
Respondent.
In the Matter of SARAI MARIE ASHFORD,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 249907
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-050421-NA
HAYWARD OLIVER, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KATRINA MARIE ASHFORD,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Neff, P.J., and Wilder and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).
We affirm.
In Docket No. 249804, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(g) and
(j) were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich
624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The
evidence established that respondent Katrina Oliver abandoned Sarai, and respondent’s
whereabouts were unknown, from December 2001 until June 2001. Although she eventually
began working toward completing the parent-agency agreement, respondent never developed
insight into Sarai’s attachment issues and remained unable to meet Sarai’s needs throughout the
oft-delayed termination proceedings. Further, in light of the lack of bond between respondent
and the child, 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).
In Docket No. 249907, we also find that the trial court did not clearly err in determining
that §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J);
Sours, supra at 633; Miller, supra at 337. Further, the evidence did not show that termination of
respondent Hayward Oliver, Jr.’s parental rights was clearly not in the best interests of the child.
MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 356-357. The evidence established that respondent had never
even seen Sarai and had no relationship with her. Although respondent did comply with some
aspects of the parent-agency agreement, he had no insight into Sarai’s attachment issues.
Moreover, he had four older children who were not in his care but resided with their paternal
grandmother under a guardianship.
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
