IN RE JERSEY MARIE LYNN PAISLEY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JERSEY MARIE LYNN
PAISLEY, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
February 24, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 287473
Branch Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-002901-NA
MATTHEW LEE PAISLEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JESSICA LEE WILSON,
Respondent.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and O’Connell and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Matthew Paisley appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j). We affirm. This
appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Termination was improper under § 19b(3)(c)(i) because 182 or more days had not
elapsed since entry of the initial dispositional order. However, the trial court did not clearly err
in finding that termination under § 19b(3)(j) was established by clear and convincing evidence.
MCR 3.977(G); In re Archer, 277 Mich App 71, 73; 744 NW2d 1 (2007). Respondent had a
severe long-term substance abuse problem and, as a result, the child had been adjudicated a
temporary court ward in 2004. Respondent regained custody of the child, and the court
terminated its jurisdiction in April 2006. Respondent resumed using drugs within a few months
and continued to do so despite additional rounds of treatment. He admittedly smoked marijuana
while caring for the child and took her to a house where drugs were being used and syringes
were lying about on the floor. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that there was a
reasonable likelihood that the child would be harmed if returned to respondent’s home. Because
-1-
petitioner established one ground for termination with clear and convincing evidence,
termination of respondent’s parental rights was appropriate. MCL 712A.19b(3).
Further, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was in the child’s best interests. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d
407 (2000); MCL 712A.19b(5). Although respondent and his daughter loved each other and
respondent wanted to regain custody, he continued to use drugs despite participating in both
inpatient and outpatient treatment. There was no indication that he could reasonably be expected
to have this problem sufficiently under control to enable him to resume custody. The trial court
did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/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.
