IN RE TROY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MICHAEL TROY, ADRIANNA
TROY, DARRELL TROY, WILLIAM TROY,
and CHRISTIAN TROY, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 13, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281373
Muskegon Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-032498-NA
ELIZABETH TROY,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Sawyer and Murphy, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the circuit court order terminating her parental rights
to the children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). Because clear and convincing
evidence established a statutory basis for termination of parental rights and termination of
parental rights was not clearly contrary to the best interests of the children, we affirm.
The circuit court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
of parental rights set forth in MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions that led to adjudication
continue to exist), (g) (failure to provide proper care and custody), and (j) (child will be harmed
if returned to parent), were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re
JK, 468 Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). The evidence demonstrated that respondent
did not benefit from the services provided to improve her parenting skills and to understand and
remedy the issues facing her family, such as her pattern of putting the children in abusive
situations. There was evidence that despite the services she received respondent still was not
certain whether she would allow boyfriend, Edward Dykstra, who the children accused of
physical abuse, to be around the children if her parental rights were not terminated. The
testimony from the evaluating psychologist, caseworkers, counselors, teacher, and in-home
mentor was congruent on respondent’s parental deficiencies, lack of progress in remediation of
her behavior and attitudes notwithstanding the provision of services, and a prognosis for her
failure with harm to the children.
Furthermore, we find no clear error in the circuit court’s finding that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was not contrary to the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5);
-1-
In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 350; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). All of the children indicated that they
loved respondent and wanted to continue to see her in the future, but they did not feel safe living
with her. The children had been in foster care under the current petition for 13 months and under
a previous petition with similar allegations for 21 months. They deserved the chance for stability
and permanency. We, therefore, affirm the circuit court’s order terminating respondent’s
parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ William B. Murphy
-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.
