IN RE TIYLER ALTON GIBBS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TIYLER ALTON GIBBS, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
September 3, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 288043
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-349450-NA
ALTON AUGUSTUS GIBBS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ASHA CHERRON WITHERS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of TIYLER ALTON GIBBS, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 289161
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-349450-NA
ASHA CHERRON WITHERS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ALTON AUGUSTUS GIBBS,
Respondent.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Meter and Stephens, JJ.
-1-
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the order terminating
their parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (j), and, with
respect to respondent-mother only, MCL 712A.19b(3)(i). We affirm.
To terminate parental rights, the trial court must first find that at least one of the statutory
grounds set forth in MCL 712A.19b(3) was proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re JK,
468 Mich 202, 210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 350; 612 NW2d
407 (2000). Once a statutory basis for termination is established, the court must terminate
parental rights if it also finds that termination is in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5).
This Court reviews for clear error the trial court’s findings that a basis for termination was
established and that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests. MCR 3.977(J);
In re Trejo Minors, supra at 356-357.
With regard to respondent-father, the conditions leading to the adjudication were his past
criminal sexual conduct conviction and his inappropriate housing. Although there was evidence
that respondent-father complied with several aspects of his treatment plan, the record contained
clear and convincing evidence that he did not complete individual therapy to address his past
criminal sexual conduct, but instead was terminated from therapy early due to lack of
cooperation and nonattendance. There was further evidence that respondent-father continued to
live with his brother, who was also a convicted sexual offender. On the basis of this evidence,
the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory bases for termination of respondentfather’s parental rights set forth in MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) were proven by clear and
convincing evidence.
The evidence also established that termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was
in the child’s best interests. The child never lived with respondent-father and, while the child
enjoyed seeing respondent-father at visitation, the evidence established that they did not share a
strong bond. In the 15 months that the child was in foster care, respondent-father did not fully
address the issues concerning him that brought the child into care. On the basis of this evidence,
we find no clear error in the court’s best-interests determination.
With regard to respondent-mother, the issues leading to the adjudication were her
substance abuse, her criminal history, and the prior termination of her parental rights to three
other children. She argues on appeal that petitioner failed to ensure that she received proper
treatment and medication for her bipolar disorder and that, with proper treatment, she would
have been able to stay off drugs and comply with her treatment plan. In addressing this issue, we
note the evidence that respondent-mother underwent a psychological evaluation in jail in the
months before the permanent custody hearing and received a recommendation that she obtain
individual counseling, but not medication, for her disorder. In addition, there was evidence that
petitioner could not refer respondent-mother for counseling because of her frequent
incarcerations and inpatient drug-treatment stays. Furthermore, in light of the evidence that
respondent-mother’s parental rights to three other children were terminated in the past due
primarily to her substance abuse, that she did not resolve her longstanding substance-abuse
problem in the 15 months the child at issue in the present case was in foster care, and that she
continued her criminal lifestyle throughout the pendency of this case, we find no clear error in
-2-
the trial court’s finding that the statutory grounds for termination set forth in MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (i), and (j) were proven by clear and convincing evidence with regard to
respondent-mother. We also find no clear error in the court’s finding that termination of
respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests, in light of the foregoing
evidence and in light of testimony evidencing the lack of a strong bond between the child and
respondent-mother.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
-3-
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.
