IN RE IYANA ELIZABETH BAKER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of IYANA ELIZABETH BAKER,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 8, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 277928
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-728394-NA
MICHELLE ANN GACH,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Hoekstra and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the order terminating her parental rights to her minor child
under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (j), and (l). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
A petitioner must establish at least one statutory ground for termination of parental rights
by clear and convincing evidence. In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003).
Respondent argues that prior terminations alone are insufficient to establish a statutory ground,
citing In re AH, 245 Mich App 77; 627 NW2d 33 (2001), which held that MCL 722.638(1)(b)(i)
required a petition only when there was also a risk of harm and MCL 722.638(2) required a
termination petition only when the parent placed the child at an unreasonable risk of harm. The
decision did not address the statutory ground for termination, MCL 712A.19b(3)(l), which
expressly requires only a prior termination. Regardless, the lower court found a risk of harm
when it took jurisdiction over the child, and it discussed the continuing risk of harm in its
termination decision. The psychological evaluation, combined with respondent’s history,
supported the lower court’s finding that respondent still did not fully recognize the risk the father
posed and that, therefore, the baby would be at risk in her care.
The lower court did not err when it found clear and convincing evidence that
respondent’s rights to other children were terminated, MCL 712A.19b(3)(l); respondent was
unable to provide proper care and custody in a reasonable time because she did not recognize the
risk of harm posed by the father, MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); and the child was likely to be harmed if
returned to her care, MCL 712A.19b(3)(j).
-1-
When a lower court finds a statutory ground for termination, it must terminate parental
rights unless termination was clearly against the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re
Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 352-353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent argues that
termination was clearly against the child’s interests because of the bond between her and the
baby. She had custody for nearly five months and visited regularly after the child’s removal, and
the protective services worker and guardian ad litem testified that they were bonded. The bond
was relevant to the lower court’s analysis. See In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286, 301; 690 NW2d
505 (2004). However, the lower court did not err when it held that termination was not clearly
against the child’s interests because of the risk the child would be harmed.
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.
