IN RE KEVIN KEITH WRIGHT MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KEVIN KEITH WRIGHT, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 16, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254684
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 88-272049-NA
DINAH WRIGHT,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the order terminating her parental rights to her minor child
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
A petition to terminate respondent’s parental rights to the minor child was filed shortly
after the child’s birth because drug screens taken for both respondent and the child on the day of
the child’s birth were positive for cocaine. Respondent had a significant history with protective
services and previously had her parental rights to five other children terminated. All five of
these children had also tested positive for cocaine at birth.
Respondent does not argue that the statutory grounds for termination were not
established. Instead, she argues that termination of her parental rights was not in the best
interests of the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(5). Respondent contends that she could
not comply with the court’s orders because her incarceration on two separate occasions caused
financial difficulties that continued after her release from jail. Because of these financial
difficulties, she could not submit to drug screens, was unaware that drug screens were to be done
at FIA expense, and was unable to purchase the textbook required for parenting classes.
Respondent claims that she could have complied with the parent agency agreement if she had
been given three more months and further argues that factors such as prenatal care and the
possibility of false positive drug screens establish it was not in the best interests of the minor
child to terminate her parental rights.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that termination was not contrary to the
child’s best interests. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although the
trial court allowed for visitation with the minor child provided that respondent enter into a
-1-
treatment program for her substance abuse and comply with drug screens requested by the
treatment program and the FIA, respondent did not comply with this requirement and visitation
did not occur. Therefore, there was no relationship, nonetheless a bond, between respondent and
the minor child and, given respondent’s serious substance abuse issues and the termination of her
parental rights to other children, termination of her parental rights to this child was not contrary
to the child’s best interests.
Respondent also argues that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting the
testimony of the FIA worker regarding telephone conversations that she had with respondent in
which respondent admitted to her cocaine use. Respondent’s counsel did not object to this
testimony, and respondent’s evidentiary argument has not been preserved for our review. In re
Powers, 208 Mich App 582, 587; 528 NW2d 799 (1995). Moreover, the worker presented
sufficient evidence to show that the person on the telephone was respondent to satisfy MRE 901.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
