IN RE RODNEY DEWAYNE MAYS JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of RODNEY DEWAYNE MAYS,
JR., Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
February 8, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No.
272111
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-029677-NA
RODNEY DEWAYNE MAYS, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Donofrio, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (h). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination,
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g), were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR
3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the evidence did not
show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests.
MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
In November of 2003, respondent was incarcerated, rendering it impossible for him to
physically provide the child with proper care and custody. At the time of the termination
hearing, respondent was still incarcerated and unable to provide a home for the child. Although
respondent assumed that he would be released from prison on December 1, 2006, there was no
evidence that he would be able to care for his child on that date. Upon release from prison,
respondent would have to establish and maintain stable housing, employment, and a crime free
lifestyle. In addition, after his release, respondent still had to participate in services to learn to
care for a child that he had not seen in three years. This evidence combined with respondent’s
prior incarceration and relapse into criminal activity constituted clear and convincing evidence to
support the trial court’s conclusion that termination was warranted pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). In addition, there was no evidence from which the trial court could
have concluded that termination was clearly contrary to the child’s best interests.
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-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.
