IN RE DUTCHER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MACKENZIE RENE DUTCHER
and KENNEDY ANN DUTCHER, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 13, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 284949
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-457605-NA
CASSANDRA DUTCHER,
Respondent,
and
DOMINIC DUTCHER,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Beckering, P.J., and Borrello and Davis, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent father appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental
rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm. This
appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
To terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory
grounds for termination set forth in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been met by clear and convincing
evidence. In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 632-633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). If a statutory ground for
termination is established, the trial court must terminate parental rights unless there exists clear
evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The trial court’s
decision terminating parental rights is reviewed for clear error. MCR 3.977(J); Trejo, supra at
355-357; Sours, supra at 632-633. A finding is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence
to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 455
NW2d 161 (1989). Regard is to be given to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the
credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it. MCR 2.613(C); Miller, supra at 337.
-1-
There was clear and convincing evidence to terminate respondent’s parental rights
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). Respondent’s drug use and criminal history led to
Mackenzie’s and Kennedy’s adjudication. By the time of the permanent custody hearing,
respondent had not demonstrated that he could maintain a drug-free lifestyle. During the
permanent custody hearing he was, once again, and for the second time during the case,
attending residential substance abuse rehabilitation. Respondent was court ordered to repeat the
same rehabilitation program he completed in February 2007 following a breaking and entering
conviction that arose from an attempt to support his heroin habit. Because criminality and drug
use continued to be an unresolved issue at the time of the permanent custody hearing,
termination of parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) was proper.
Termination of respondent’s parental rights was also appropriate pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(g) and MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). Respondent was unable to provide proper care and
custody of his children because he had not demonstrated that he could maintain a drug- and
crime-free lifestyle, and because he did not have housing or employment. Although respondent
was two weeks shy of completing drug treatment at the time of the permanent custody hearing,
given his extensive substance abuse history and multiple relapses, the trial court could not
consider respondent rehabilitated. Mackenzie and Kennedy would be at risk of harm if returned
to respondent’s care because there is no evidence that respondent has completely overcome his
drug problem. Also, respondent’s criminal history and tendency toward criminality would
expose the children to an additional risk of harm if returned to his care.
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err in its best interests determination. No evidence
was put forth on the record by any party that it was not in Mackenzie’s or Kennedy’s bests
interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights. To the contrary, the evidence established that
respondent was using drugs and could not provide a safe, suitable home for the children.
Respondent’s decisions to use drugs while the children were temporary court wards, and to
involve himself in criminal activity to support his drug use demonstrates that the children were
not his priority. It is not in Mackenzie or Kennedy’s best interest to be reunified with a parent
who cannot properly care for them and who does not prioritize them. The children’s safety and
overall well-being are needs that must be prioritized over the relationship to a parent who has not
demonstrated parental fitness. “If a parent cannot or will not meet her irreducible minimum
parental responsibilities, the needs of the child must prevail over the needs of the parent.” In re
Terry 240 Mich App 14, 28; 610 NW2d 563 (2000), quoting In re AP, 728 A2d 375, 379 (Pa
Super, 1999).
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-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.