IN RE TONY JAMES ALBERT JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TONY JAMES ALBERT, JR,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 3, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 278306
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2005-000021-NA
TONY JAMES ALBERT, SR,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Hoekstra and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from an order terminating his parental rights to the minor
child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory ground for termination was
established by clear and convincing evidence. In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d 216
(2003); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent regularly visited his
son and participated in a variety of services, but he failed to benefit from those services to the
point where his child would not be at risk in his custody. In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 676;
692 NW2d 708 (2005). Although respondent asserts that more time was needed to allow him to
participate in more intensive support services, the court had already given him two years, which
was sufficient to enable respondent to demonstrate whether he was capable of properly parenting
his child. Respondent’s last-minute offer of a support plan at the termination hearing was simply
insufficient. Although respondent complains that he was never offered unsupervised visits with
his child, we find no basis in the record for concluding that respondent ever reached a level
where unsupervised visits were appropriate.
Further, 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. Id. at 356-357.
-1-
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.
