IN RE MATTHEW ANTHONY PHILLIPS JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MATTHEW ANTHONY
PHILLIPS, JR., Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
April 6, 2010
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 293130
St. Clair Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-000593-NA
MATTHEW PHILLIPS, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
APRIL SILLS,
Respondent.
Before: WILDER, P.J., and O’CONNELL and TALBOT, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Matthew Phillips, Sr., appeals as of right from the trial court order
terminating his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and
(j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (c)(ii) were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). The principal conditions that led to adjudication, with regard to
respondent, were that he was incarcerated, lacked parenting skills, and was a substance abuser,
and most of his support system (his family) had also been in jail or prison. Several of the
conditions that led to adjudication in December 2006 with regard to respondent no longer existed
at the time of the July 2009 termination trial. However, the evidence established that
respondent’s substance abuse continued to exist at the time of the termination trial. While on
probation for breaking and entering, respondent tested positive for drugs many times, he did not
complete substance abuse treatment, and he was facing a charge of possession of marijuana at
the time of the trial. Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that there was clear and
convincing evidence that this condition of adjudication continued to exist.
-1-
The trial court also did not clearly err in finding that respondent failed to provide proper
care and custody to the minor child and that it was reasonably likely that the child would be
harmed if returned to respondent’s home. The evidence established that respondent repeatedly
tested positive for drug use, despite the order that he refrain from substance abuse/alcohol abuse
and/or socializing in any home or establishment where drugs or alcohol were being used. In
addition, respondent had a possession of marijuana charge pending against him during the
termination of parental rights proceeding. Respondent’s contention that he was attending drug
counseling was disputed by testimony of a foster care worker. In addition, while his parole had
not been revoked, his time with an electronic tether had been extended, and further drug testing
had been ordered. Moreover, while he was not arrested during an alleged domestic violence
incident, respondent acknowledged being involved in a physical altercation while the child was
present in the home. Under these circumstances, we are not left with a definite and firm
conviction that the trial court’s conclusion, that is was reasonably likely that the child would be
harmed if returned to respondent’s home, was a mistake.
Respondent fails to assert in his issues presented that the trial court’s order terminating
his parental rights is not in the best interest of the child. Therefore, this issue is deemed
abandoned. Mettler Walloon, LLC v Melrose Twp, 281 Mich App 184, 221; 761 NW2d 293
(2008). Nevertheless, respondent claims in the body of his brief that the termination of his
parental rights is not in the child’s best interests. On our review of the record, we are not left
with a firm and definite conviction that the trial court made a mistake when it concluded that
termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
