IN RE BATTICE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ARALYN BATTICE and
JAIDAH BATTICE, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
August 27, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 291522
Mason Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-000133-NA
MATTHEW BATTICE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: M. J. Kelly, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Shapiro, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to the
minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.1
Respondent argues that the trial court clearly erred in finding that the statutory grounds
for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, respondent
contends he substantially complied with his treatment plan. We disagree. Contrary to
respondent’s contention, the record reveals that he failed to make any substantial progress with
services. He delayed engaging in counseling and then attended only half the sessions, he failed
to meet with the parenting educator on a regular basis, and he failed to attend family visits on a
regular basis. This same lack of consistency and follow-through prevented respondent from
maintaining steady employment and a stable home. Due to his failure to invest himself in
services, respondent never demonstrated an ability to provide a safe, stable home for the children
on a long-term basis. Given the foregoing, clear and convincing evidence supports the listed
statutory grounds for termination. See MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 355; 612
NW2d 407 (2000).
1
This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
-1-
Further, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). Accordingly, we
conclude that the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
-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.
