IN RE VERITY AMELIA TEBAY-MATKIN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of VERITY AMELIA TEBAYMATKIN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
February 12, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 280822
St. Clair Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-000640-NA
MICHELLE TEBAY,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Cavanagh and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to
the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds had been
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Ample evidence existed on the record to support the trial court’s
decision. Between the initial disposition order in January 2006 and the filing of the supplemental
termination petition in March 2007, respondent failed to comply with many aspects of her
parent-agency agreement, with the main issue being the domestic violence that existed in her
relationship with the child’s father. Respondent downplayed or denied this domestic violence.
Under her reasoning, an incident qualified as domestic violence only if it involved a physical
assault, and was serious only if it was reported to, and documented by, the police. This type of
reasoning meant respondent failed to recognize the effect of violent behavior in general, and the
impact a violent person has upon a household where others live in fear even if they were not the
targets of a physical assault. Although respondent claimed that her relationship with the child’s
father ended in August of 2006, she stated in December of 2006 that he was her only support and
she would consider pressing charges against him because she would know where he was and
would be able to talk to him if he were incarcerated. This evidence indicated there was an
ongoing relationship (whether romantic or just friendly), where respondent was extremely reliant
upon him for support. Respondent’s claim that the child’s father now resided out of state was
contradicted by Secretary of State records, and, even if the claim were true, there was a strong
probability that she would allow him back into her house if he returned to the state of Michigan.
-1-
Given this evidence, the trial court did not clearly err when it found that respondent had
not yet rectified the adjudicating condition of domestic violence, had failed to protect and
provide proper care or custody to the young child, there was no reasonable likelihood or
expectation that respondent would soon be able to extricate herself from this violent relationship,
and the probability of continued domestic violence placed the child at risk of harm if returned to
respondent’s home. MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). Further, the child was young, needed
protection, and had spent over half of her life outside of respondent’s care. The trial court also
did not err in its best interests determination. MCL 712A.19b(5).
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.
