IN RE TIARA MARIE DELAROSA-WITT MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TIARA MARIE DELAROSAWITT, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 18, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 278994
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-029488-NA
DERRICK LEE DONALD,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Hoekstra and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights
to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
Respondent argues that the trial court erred in finding that the evidence supported
termination of his parental rights. We disagree. This Court reviews the trial court’s factual
findings for clear error. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989);
In re Conley, 216 Mich App 41, 42; 549 NW2d 353 (1996). A finding is clearly erroneous if,
although there is evidence to support it, the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that
the trial court made a mistake. In re Miller, supra at 337; In re Conley, supra at 42. Once a
statutory ground for termination is established by clear and convincing evidence, the court must
order termination of parental rights, unless it finds that termination is clearly not in the child’s
best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
The evidence established that more than 182 days had elapsed since the initial
dispositional order was entered. The conditions that led to the adjudication included
respondent’s incarceration and failure to provide emotional or financial support for the child.
Respondent remained incarcerated during most of the 2-1/2 years that the child was in care and
failed to meaningfully participate in the proceedings. During a ten-month period when
respondent was not incarcerated, he failed to establish a relationship with the child, and failed to
provide financial, emotional, or physical support for the child. Contrary to what respondent
argues, he had ample opportunity to demonstrate his willingness and ability to establish a
relationship with the child, but did not do so. Considering respondent’s history, conduct, and
-1-
lack of involvement, there is no reasonable likelihood that his circumstances will sufficiently
change or improve within a reasonable time and, therefore, no reasonable expectation that he will
be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence.
Also, the evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 354. Therefore,
the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/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.
