IN RE ALYSSA MARIE FRANK MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALYSSA MARIE FRANK,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 30, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255027
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-027244-NA
MARK FRANK,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MELINDA MILLER,
Respondent.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murray and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from an order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child, pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (h), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480
NW2d 293 (1991). Respondent-appellant was incarcerated at the time the minor child was taken
into temporary custody. He was unable to provide the minor child with a place to live and was
unable to financially support the child. He did not provide any alternate placements for the
minor child during the course of the proceedings, even after receiving copies of the service plans
that specifically stated that there was no relative placement identified and the minor child was
placed in foster care after her mother’s relapse into cocaine use. During the two and a half year
pendency of this case, respondent-appellant was released from prison for approximately forty
days and saw the child once for twenty minutes. Although he claimed that he was not allowed to
visit more, he did not contact the FIA caseworker to ask for help with visitation. After the
child’s mother’s rights were terminated, and approximately one month prior to the continuation
of the termination trial with respect to respondent-appellant, he claimed to have sent the FIA
-1-
worker a letter indicating that his sister could care for the minor child until his release and that he
had eleven brothers and sisters who could help. However, none of respondent-appellant’s
relatives appeared at the termination trial.
At the time of the termination trial, respondent-appellant was still incarcerated. He had
already been denied parole once, and his earliest release date was October 2004 with the latest
release date in 2007. The child was almost four years old and was dealing with behavioral
problems and an emotional disorder and needed stability and permanency according to the
therapist who was treating her. Respondent-appellant had done nothing during the pendency of
this case to provide for the minor child. In fact, the only thing asked of respondent-appellant was
that he maintain monthly contact with the FIA, and he failed to do even that.
Furthermore, the evidence failed to establish that termination of respondent-appellant’s
parental rights was not in the minor child’s best interests. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341,
355-356; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The court found that if the minor child were going to be able to
bond and attach to people, she needed to have stability in the near future. Respondent-appellant
could not provide this stability for her.
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.
