IN RE N G MULLINS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
December 21, 2010
In the Matter of N. G. MULLINS, Minor.
No. 297771
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-458062
Before: DONOFRIO, P.J., and CAVANAGH and FITZGERALD, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right the order terminating his parental rights to his minor child
under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) (abandonment), (b)(ii) (failure to prevent injury and future injury
likely), (c)(i) (conditions leading to adjudication continue to exist), (g) (failure and inability to
provide proper care and custody), (g) (failure and inability to provide proper care and custody),
(h) (incarceration for two years and child deprived of normal home), (j) (child likely harmed if
returned), and (k)(i) (abandonment of a young child). Because petitioner established at least one
statutory basis to terminate parental rights by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm.
A petitioner must establish at least one statutory ground for termination of parental rights
by clear and convincing evidence. In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). We
review the trial court’s findings for clear error. MCR 3.977(K). And the trial court’s decision
should not be reversed if there was sufficient evidence under any statutory ground, regardless
whether the court erred in finding sufficient evidence under other grounds. In re Huisman, 230
Mich App 372, 384-385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998) overruled in part on other grounds In re Trejo
Minors, 462 Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000)..
After reviewing the record, we may question the trial court’s determinations as they relate
to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (b)(ii), (j), and (k)(i), in light of the recently decided, In re Mason,
486 Mich 142 ; 782 NW2d 747 (2010), where the Court found clear error when the petitioner
and the lower court did not analyze the incarcerated respondent’s ability to parent after his
release, his rights were terminated primarily because he failed to comply with services not
available to him in prison, and the children could live with his relatives until his release. But our
analysis necessarily focuses on MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (conditions leading to adjudication
continue to exist), and (g) (failure and inability to provide proper care and custody).
The present case is distinguishable from In re Mason because respondent was on parole
at the initiation of these proceedings. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to visit his
child and work toward reunification, he committed another crime and was re-incarcerated, all the
-1-
while knowing the mother could not care for their child and that his parental rights were at stake.
Respondent had previously violated parole and was re-incarcerated while the mother—who had
lost custody of other children—was pregnant with this child. Further, respondent admitted he
owed about $20,000 in child support for another child born in 1993, spent most of that child’s
life in and out of prison, and was uncertain whether he saw her when he was out of prison from
February 2008 to summer 2008. The way a parent treated one child is probative of how he will
treat another child. In re AH, 245 Mich App 77, 84-85; 627 NW2d 33 (2001). Respondent also
did not provide a relative willing to care for this child until his release.
Our review of the record reveals that the trial court did not clearly err when it found clear
and convincing evidence that the conditions leading to adjudication continued to exist and were
not likely to be rectified in a reasonable time, MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), and respondent failed to
provide proper care and custody and was not likely to within a reasonable time, MCL
712A.19b(3)(g).
Respondent does not challenge on appeal the trial court’s finding that termination was in
the child’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
-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.