IN RE DESTINY PERKINS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DESTINY PERKINS, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
October 23, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 276831
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-053130-NA
TOMMY CHATMAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARKESHA LATAE CURRY and
CHRISTOPHER BROWN,
Respondents.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Bandstra and Davis, 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). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory ground for termination of
respondent’s parental rights was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J);
In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent desired to care for eightyear-old Destiny upon his release from prison, which was anticipated two months after the
termination hearing. However, the trial court correctly found no reasonable expectation that
respondent would be able to provide proper parental care within a reasonable time because the
evidence showed that respondent did not have a stable parent-child relationship with Destiny
before his June 2005 incarceration and had not had contact with Destiny since becoming
incarcerated. In addition, the evidence showed that respondent had a history of criminality and
substance abuse and would require a significant amount of time to demonstrate rehabilitation
before reunification would be considered.
Respondent argues on appeal that the agency did not provide him reasonable
reunification services. The agency was not required to provide reunification services to a
-1-
respondent in prison. Respondent lacked services because he chose to engage in criminal
activity and became incarcerated. Additionally, the evidence was clear that the caseworker
attempted communication with respondent but respondent did not reply or request materials and
information from her regarding reunification, the proceedings, or Destiny.
Additionally, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was clearly contrary to the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The evidence showed that respondent had not been a
consistent father figure to Destiny in terms of either contact or financial support, had not
maintained contact with her during the proceeding, and that his new wife was a stranger to her.
His incarceration left her without a parent able to care for her during the 18-month proceeding,
and would leave her without a parent until he rehabilitated. Given no reasonable expectation that
respondent would become a long-term, stable and suitable parent within a reasonable time, there
was no evidence that termination was clearly contrary to Destiny’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-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.
