IN RE T V C FRY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
July 20, 2010
In the Matter of T. V. C. FRY, Minor.
No. 295682
St. Joseph Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2007-001105-NA
Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and JANSEN and BECKERING, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent T. Herington (respondent) appeals by right the circuit court’s order
terminating her parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We affirm.
Contrary to respondent’s argument on appeal, the circuit court did not clearly err by
finding that § 19b(3)(g) had been established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J);
In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although the circuit court erred to
the extent that it found that some of the original barriers to reunification (e.g., substance abuse,
domestic violence, and mental health concerns) continued to exist, the court properly concluded
that other identified barriers to reunification continued to exist and were not likely to be rectified
within a reasonable time given the child’s age. Respondent was unable to live independently and
relied on others for housing, transportation, and financial support. Further, due to a chaotic
upbringing, the child suffered from ambivalent attachment disorder. Respondent worked on
parenting skills and parent-child interactive therapy for several months, but made only minimal
progress. The evidence established that respondent did not internalize the concepts that were
taught and thus did not continue to use those concepts when she was not being actively coached.
Consequently, the child still did not know what to expect from respondent and still did not trust
respondent to meet his needs. The child continued to respond by acting out, and respondent
could not control his behavior.
We acknowledge that respondent loves the child and that respondent made progress in
certain limited respects during the pendency of these proceedings. However, in other respects,
respondent remained wholly unable to provide proper care and custody for the child. Moreover,
the evidence supported the circuit court’s determination that respondent would remain unable to
-1-
do so within a reasonable time given the child’s age. For these reasons, we cannot conclude that
the circuit court clearly erred by terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child.1
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
1
Respondent does not challenge the circuit court’s best-interests determination under MCL
712A.19b(5). We therefore decline to address it.
-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.
