IN RE ONTARIO GREGORY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ONTARIO GREGORY, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 28, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 221750
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 94-000068-NA
ANTHONY GRAY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANDREA GREGORY,
Respondent.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Doctoroff and T.L. Ludington*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant Anthony Gray appeals as of right from the family court order terminating
his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(h); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(h). We
affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory ground for termination was
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445
NW2d 161 (1989); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997).
According to the evidence, respondent-appellant was bound to be imprisoned for at least fifteen months
from the date the court authorized the petition for termination, and, upon his release, would be residing
in a year-long rehabilitation program. The evidence further showed that respondent-appellant had never
provided care or custody for the child, and that, beyond good intentions, had neither plans nor the
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
means to do so within reasonable time after his release from prison. Thus the trial court properly
concluded that respondent-appellant’s period of imprisonment would deprive the child of a normal
home for at least two years. MCL 712A.19b(3)(h); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(h).
Further, respondent-appellant does not contest the other elements of § 19b(3)(h)—that he had
not provided proper care and custody for the child and was not reasonably likely to do so within a
reasonable time considering the child’s age. Because these latter elements by themselves satisfy
§ 19b(3)(g) as an independent basis for termination, which was expressly alleged in the amended
petition, that provision affords an alternative basis for affirming the trial court. See In re Perry, 193
Mich App 648, 650-651; 484 NW2d 678 (1992).
Additionally, respondent-appellant does not argue, and the record does not show, that
termination of his parental rights was “clearly not” in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, supra at 472-473.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to
the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Thomas L. Ludington
-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.
