IN RE AALIYAH MARIE EASTMAN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AALIYAH MARIE EASTMAN,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
July 16, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 290247
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-002227-NA
ANTHONY ALICEA,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Murray and Beckering, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
We agree with respondent that the trial court erred in finding that the allegations in the
petition were true and established a basis for termination under § 19b(3)(g).
A trial court may terminate parental rights upon finding that at least one statutory ground
for termination has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. MCL 712A.19b(3); In re
Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 360; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review the trial court’s decision for clear
error. Id. at 356-357.
The trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights pursuant to § 19b(3)(g), which
authorizes the court to terminate the rights of a parent to a child if the court finds, by clear and
convincing evidence, that “[t]he parent, without regard to intent, fails to provide proper care or
custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be able to provide
proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the child's age.”
When termination is sought in a supplemental petition after the initial dispositional
hearing, the court can terminate parental rights if it finds that one or more of the facts alleged in
the petition are true and come within § 19b(3). MCR 3.977(F)(1)(b) and (G)(3). With respect to
respondent, the supplemental petition alleged that Children’s Protective Services (CPS) had
received a complaint on October 20, 2008, that respondent was selling drugs and had guns in his
-1-
house. Four days later, the foster care worker referred respondent for a drug screen, which he
failed to complete. As of November 12, 2008, the CPS worker had repeatedly tried to contact
respondent without success.
The evidence established that there was a cause for concern regarding respondent’s
ability to provide proper care and custody, but the CPS complaint was not substantiated. The
evidence did not clearly and convincingly show that respondent was unable to provide proper
care or custody or that he would not be able to do so within a reasonable time. The evidence at
the hearing established that the CPS complaint was unfounded and that subsequent drug screens
indicated that respondent was not using drugs. Because there was no reason to believe that
respondent abused drugs or kept guns in his home, there was no basis for concluding that he was
unable to provide proper care and custody or that he would not be able to provide proper care
and custody within a reasonable time given the child’s age. Therefore, the trial court clearly
erred in terminating respondent’s parental rights.
Accordingly, we reverse the order terminating respondent’s parental rights and remand
for further proceedings. Because we conclude that a statutory ground for termination was not
established, it is unnecessary to consider the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). We do
not retain jurisdiction.
Reversed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
-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.
