IN RE TREVON DINES MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TREVON DINES, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 13, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 282276
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-471275-NA
LATOYA DINES,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Sawyer and Murphy, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating her parental rights
to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care and custody),
(i) (parental rights to the child’s sibling(s) have been terminated due to serious and chronic
neglect), (l) (parental rights to another child were terminated as a result of a proceeding under
MCL 712A.2(b), or a similar law of another state), and (m) (parental rights to another child were
voluntarily terminated after proceedings were instituted under MCL 712A.2(b), or a similar law
of another state). 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 child, we affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that MCL 712A.19b(3)(m) was established
by clear and convincing evidence. In re Archer, 277 Mich App 71, 73; 744 NW2d 1 (2007). It
was undisputed that the child’s four siblings had become court wards following the initiation of
child protection proceedings in Ohio, that respondent failed to complete the service plans for
reunification, and that respondent voluntarily released her parental rights to three of those
children. Because only a single statutory ground for termination need be proven by clear and
convincing evidence, In re Archer, supra, it is unnecessary to consider the remaining statutory
grounds.
Further, the evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was not in the child’s best interests. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407
(2000); MCL 712A.19b(5). She had other children who had been removed from her custody due
to neglect, she was given several opportunities to participate in services to improve her parenting
ability but failed to follow through, and there was no evidence that she had voluntarily obtained
-1-
services to rectify the conditions that caused her other children to become court wards.
Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child.
Trejo, supra at 356-357.
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.
