IN RE OLIVER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BROOKELYNN ELISE OLIVER
and BRENDAN CHAYSE OLIVER, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 12, 2010
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 291464
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-740465-NA
WILLIAM HERBERT OLIVER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SHANNON OLIVER,
Respondent.
Before: Davis, P.J., and Fort Hood and Servitto, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant William Oliver appeals as of right from the trial court order
terminating his parental rights to Brookelynn Oliver under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j),
and to Brendan Oliver under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(G); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Brookelynn was removed in November 2007, and Brendan
was born in March 2008. Respondent’s struggles with drug addiction culminated in an overdose
in August 2008. Although respondent did comply with the parent-agency agreement to some
extent, the evidence supported the court’s finding that his history demonstrated a likelihood that
he would again relapse and be unable to provide his children a proper home. His actions
repeatedly endangered his children’s lives. Further, respondent was provided with appropriate
services to rectify the conditions causing removal. MCL 712A.18f(1), MCL 712A.19a(6)(c). He
also had a meaningful opportunity to participate in the proceedings. In re Rood, 483 Mich 73,
111; 763 NW2d 587 (2009). His lack of participation was caused by his incarceration, substance
abuse, and unavailability.
-1-
We also find no clear error in the trial court’s determination that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra
at 356-357. Although professing his love for the children, respondent showed very poor
judgment throughout the case, repeatedly endangered the children’s lives, and demonstrated no
ability to care for them and provide a stable environment. While there was some testimony that
Brookelynn asked about respondent, the evidence did not show a strong bond with either child,
and the court did not clearly err in finding termination to be in the children’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Alton T. Davis
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
-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.
