IN RE VANDYKE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of OLIVIA MARIA VANDYKE and
VINESSA JAMIE VANDYKE, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 30, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254770
Lake Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-000904-NA
GARY VANDYKE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CRYSTAL RAJE,
Respondent.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murray and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Gary VanDyke appeals as of right the order terminating his parental rights.
We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondents were referred to protective services after their child was diagnosed with a
two to three week old displaced fracture in her femur. The mother voluntarily relinquished her
parental rights, and respondent father reported that he was unable to care for the children due to
his medical condition. Respondent father subsequently suffered a massive stroke and is confined
to a nursing home.
Pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3), the petitioner for the termination of parental rights bears
the burden of proving at least one ground for termination. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341,
350; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Once the petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence
that persuades the court that a ground for termination is established, termination of parental
rights is mandatory unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the child’s best
interests. Id. at 355-356. Decisions terminating parental rights are reviewed for clear error. Id.
at 356.
-1-
The petition alleged that respondent failed to rectify conditions leading to the petition and
failed to provide proper care and custody. MCL 712A.19b(3) provides for termination when
(c)
The parent was a respondent in a proceeding brought under this
chapter, 182 or more days have elapsed since the issuance of an initial
dispositional order, and the court, by clear and convincing evidence, finds either
of the following:
(i)
The conditions that led to the adjudication continue to exist and
there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions will be rectified within a
reasonable time considering the child’s age.
* * *
(g)
The parent, without regard to intent, fails to provide proper care or
custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be
able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the
child’s age.
There was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of respondent’s
parental rights. Given respondent’s condition, he could do nothing to rectify the conditions that
led to the filing of the petition. Clearly, without regard to intent, respondent has not provided
proper care and custody for the children, and there is no reasonable expectation that respondent
will recover sufficiently to provide proper care within a reasonable time. There is no evidence
that termination was not in the best interests of the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/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.
