IN RE KEITH JOSEPH MAES JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KEITH JOSEPH MAES, JR.,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 20, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 262534
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-681781-NA
KEITH JOSEPH MAES, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CAROLYN SUE HAYES,
Respondent.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Saad and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (j) and (l). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err by finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The grounds for termination found in MCL 712A.19b(3)(l) were
indisputably established by the admission of a previous order terminating respondent-appellant’s
rights to another child. Respondent-appellant has been incarcerated for substantial portions of
the child’s life and was incarcerated at the time of the termination trial. The evidence indicated
that respondent-appellant placed the child with inappropriate caregivers during his incarceration
and failed to meet minimal parental responsibilities, such as arranging for the child’s attendance
at school. Respondent-appellant did not provide the child’s caregiver with financial support or
medical insurance for him. Respondent-appellant’s tendency to act impetuously, to experience
abrupt shifts in inhibitory controls, and to disregard alternatives and consequences, all indicated
by his psychological evaluation, would appear to suggest a likelihood of further criminal
conduct. Given the pervasive history of neglect that is clearly intertwined with respondent-
-1-
appellant’s criminal involvement, and again considering his psychological evaluation, which
indicates that he is unstable and highly volatile, it appears wholly reasonable to conclude that the
child would continue in a pattern of multiple and inappropriate caregivers and instability in the
long term if returned to the care of respondent father. Therefore, termination of respondent
appellant’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j) was not clearly erroneous.1
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination of respondentappellant’s parental rights was not clearly contrary to the best interests of the child. MCL
712A.19b(5). Even assuming that respondent-appellant achieves an early release from prison,
his psychological evaluation and personal history indicate that he is not a suitable long-term
placement for the child. We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
failing to adjourn the best interests hearing for a psychological evaluation of the child. In re
Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 28; 501 NW2d 182 (1993).
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
1
We are satisfied, further, that the trial court adequately stated its findings of fact and
conclusions of law on the record. MCR 3.977(H)(1).
-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.
