IN RE TRENT ALLEN CARTER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TRENT ALLEN CARTER,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 3, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 262503
Cass Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-000193-NA
JOE JAMES DILLEY,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and White and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
Respondent first argues that the statutory ground for termination were not established by
clear and convincing evidence where he could have corrected the remaining issues within a
reasonable time. This Court reviews decisions terminating parental rights for clear error. MCR
3.77(J). Clear error has been defined as a decision that strikes this Court as more than just
maybe or probably wrong. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
After learning that he was Trent’s father through a paternity test, respondent put forth a
commendable effort to comply with the parent-agency treatment plan. However, respondent still
had remaining issues with substance abuse, unstable housing, lack of transportation, and police
involvement. Trent was eight months old at the time of trial and his very young age shortened
the period of time for which it was reasonable to allow respondent to rectify the conditions
leading to adjudication, pursuant to section (c)(i), and provide proper care and custody for Trent,
pursuant to section (g). The trial court did not clearly err in finding that sections (c)(i) and (g)
were established by clear and convincing evidence where respondent’s remaining issues could
not be corrected within the short period of time that was reasonable considering Trent’s age.
Respondent also argues that the trial court clearly erred in its best interests determination.
Termination of parental rights is mandatory if the trial court finds that the petitioner established a
statutory ground for termination, unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the
child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 344. Trent’s young age necessitated
-1-
quick action on respondent’s part. Because respondent had issues that needed to be resolved and
because it was unlikely that he would be able to resolve those issues within a short period of
time, the trial court did not clearly err in its best interests determination.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
