IN RE JEI'VYN TRAONCE' HILL-WRIGHT MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JEI’VYN TRAONCE’ HILLWRIGHT, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
August 21, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 283299
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-030597-NA
NAYKIMA HILL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TRAVHON WRIGHT,
Respondent.
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Zahra and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Naykima Hill appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Respondent does not dispute the trial court’s findings regarding the statutory grounds for
termination. She only contends that the trial court erred in its determination of the child’s best
interests. We disagree.
Although respondent testified that she loved her daughter, the evidence showed that
respondent had a serious substance abuse problem that led her to knowingly place her child at
risk by using cocaine during her pregnancy. She refused to engage in individual counseling, did
not make a good-faith effort at substance abuse treatment, and admitted that she continued to use
drugs, which presumably accounted for her sporadic attendance at family visits. Respondent was
subsequently arrested and jailed pending trial on serious criminal charges, preventing her from
attending any visits. Consequently, respondent’s daughter, who was removed from respondent’s
care at birth, never established a bond with respondent and did not know her as her mother.
Respondent remained jailed pending trial on serious criminal charges and her trial date was
unknown. It was uncertain when, if ever, respondent would be in a position to plan for the child
-1-
and develop a relationship with her. Under the circumstances, the evidence did not clearly show
that termination of respondent’s parental rights was not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the trial
court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Bill Schuette
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
