IN RE ALYSIA PRICE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALYSIA PRICE, a/k/a BABY
GIRL MURPHY, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
February 12, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 280008
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2006-000356-NA
TYRIE PRICE, a/k/a IRISKA PRICE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Cavanagh and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the order terminating his parental rights to the minor
child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).1 We affirm. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Termination of parental rights is appropriate where petitioner proves by clear and
convincing evidence at least one ground for termination. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 355; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). Once this has occurred, the trial court must terminate parental rights unless it
finds that the termination is clearly not in the best interests of the child. Id. at 353. This Court
reviews the trial court’s findings under the clearly erroneous standard. In re Sours, 459 Mich
624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999).
The minor child came into care because her mother tested positive for cocaine at the
child’s birth. At the time, respondent was incarcerated, and his failure to support the financial,
emotional, and physical needs of his daughter were also conditions of adjudication. The parental
rights of the minor child’s biological mother were terminated. After respondent was released
from prison the court ordered that it would not reunify him with the minor child if he were
planning to remain in a relationship with the biological mother. Despite this court order, there
1
Although respondent also challenges the termination of his rights under MCL
712A.19b(3)(b)(iii), our review of the record establishes that the trial court did not rely on this
statutory subsection in terminating respondent’s parental rights.
-1-
was evidence that respondent continued a relationship with the child’s mother, who used
respondent’s address as hers. An incident occurred where the police were summoned to
respondent’s address and found the biological mother under the influence of drugs. Further, a
separate incident was noted involving a bail bondsmen going to respondent’s address looking for
the biological mother, believing that this was her address, which resulted in an altercation and
the discharge of a chemical agent into respondent’s home. The trial court found that such
incidents demonstrated that respondent’s continuing relationship with the child’s mother
prevented him from adequately providing for the child’s emotional and physical needs and
would place the child in harm’s way if she were returned to respondent’s care. Respondent was
given adequate time to plan for minor child yet, despite the trial court’s order, failed to exclude
the biological mother from his plan. Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in finding the
statutory grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence.
The trial court also did not clearly err in its best interests determination. MCL
712A.19b(5). Testimony established that respondent loved his daughter and wanted the
opportunity to be a good father. However, the child was in the care of the Department of Human
Services (DHS) her entire life and needed a safe, permanent and stable environment. Although
respondent visited his child and had established a home, he was not able to provide her with a
safe environment because his plan to provide care failed to exclude the child’s biological mother.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
