IN RE KRZYCKI MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of COREY JAMES KRZYCKI and
CALEB CHRISTOPHER KRZYCKI, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 11, 2010
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 294399
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2006-000584-NA
COREY DIJION JOHNSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TAMARA LYNN KRZYCKI,
Respondent.
In the Matter of COREY JAMES KRZYCKI and
CALEB CHRISTOPHER KRZYCKI, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 294400
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2006-000584-NA
TAMARA LYNN KRZYCKI,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
COREY DIJION JOHNSON,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: TALBOT, P.J., AND FITZGERALD AND M. J. KELLY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order
terminating their parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
To terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory
grounds for termination set forth in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been met by clear and convincing
evidence and that termination is in the best interest of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re
Sours, 459 Mich 624, 632-633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). The trial court’s decision regarding
termination of parental rights is reviewed for clear error. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo Minors, 462
Mich 341, 355-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Only respondent-father contests the finding of statutory grounds for termination of his
parental rights. We find no clear error in the court’s determination that the statutory grounds for
termination of his parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. At the time
of the adjudication, respondent-mother had an untreated substance abuse addiction, and
respondent-father had never intervened to protect Corey from respondent-mother’s drug use. By
the time of the permanent custody hearing, respondent-mother had not overcome her drug
addiction, and respondent-father had not made any effort or expressed the willingness to care for
the children independently. Respondent-father was unable to provide proper care and custody of
Corey and Caleb and never came into full compliance with his treatment plan. Although the
caseworkers were not concerned that respondent-father was drug addicted like respondentmother, during the pendency of the case he used illegal drugs and did not regularly submit drug
screens as required by his parent-agency agreement. Respondent-father, therefore, was unable to
demonstrate that he was drug-free, and also never demonstrated an ability to maintain suitable
housing for any significant length of time. Additionally, respondent-father did not comply with
the treatment plan’s requirements that he maintain regular contact with the caseworker and show
evidence of his progress in counseling. Respondent-father’s failure to come into compliance
with his parent-agency agreement is evidence of his failure to provide proper care and custody
for the children. In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 214; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). Further, because of
respondent-father’s involvement with respondent-mother, the children would be exposed to her
use of illegal drugs, which would put them at risk of harm. The trial court warned respondentfather that, if he continued his relationship with respondent-mother, her substance abuse issues
would affect his chances for reunification. There was no evidence that respondent-father had a
childcare plan that did not involve respondent-mother, or that he would take steps to keep the
children protected from her drug use.
Both respondents argue that the trial court erred in its best interests determination. We
disagree. It is in Corey and Caleb’s best interest to be raised in a drug free, safe environment,
which respondents have been unable to provide. It is also in Corey and Caleb’s best interests to
be cared for by individuals who can provide for their basic needs. Although respondent-father
had been employed throughout the case, there was no evidence that respondent-mother could
make any financial contribution to the family. Moreover, respondents never showed a copy of
their lease agreement to the caseworker in an effort to demonstrate their ability to obtain
independent housing, and never demonstrated an ability to maintain suitable housing for any
-2-
length of time. Respondents are, therefore, unable to provide the children with the stability that
they need, and continuing their court wardship as suggested by respondent-mother would deprive
them of the permanency that is in their best interests.
Respondents’ failure to address their drug issues, regularly submit drug screens, and
maintain suitable housing demonstrates that they are not fit caregivers for Corey and Caleb.
Other than to argue that they have a strong bond with their children, neither of the respondents
demonstrated that termination of parental rights was not in the children’s best interests. Thus,
the trial court did not clearly err in its best interest determination.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-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.
