IN RE BRITTANY HEATHER AVERILL MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRITTANY HEATHER
AVERILL, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 22, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 272917
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-029497-NA
CHARLES E. AVERILL, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Bandstra and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Charles E. Averill, Jr., appeals as of right from the trial court’s order
terminating his parental rights to his minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (h).
We affirm.
Respondent contends that the trial court erred in finding that clear and convincing
evidence supported termination of his parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and
(h). We disagree. Respondent was incarcerated at the time of adjudication, continued to be
incarcerated at the time of termination, and was no more able to provide for proper care and
custody of the child at the time of termination than at adjudication. Moreover, respondent’s
earliest release date was September 2012. Although respondent had proposed his own parents as
potential caregivers for the child in the interim, it was questionable whether they were physically
able or even actually willing to care for the child for the minimum of six years before
respondent’s earliest release date. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory
grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Fried, 266
Mich App 535, 540-541; 702 NW2d 192 (2005); MCR 3.977(J). Similarly, the evidence did not
clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was against the child’s best
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child.
We affirm.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-1-
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.
