IN RE MCGIVNEY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KRISTINA FRANCES
MCGIVNEY, AMBER MICHELLE MCGIVNEY,
AND LATRISICA ANN MCGIVNEY, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 16, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
Nos. 220428;220471
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 94-315673
CATHERINE MARILYN MCGIVNEY, a/k/a
CATHERINE MARILYN MORELL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARK MCGIVNEY
Respondent-Appellant.
.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Gage and Talbot.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from the family court’s order terminating their parental rights
with respect to the three involved minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and (ii), (c)(i), (g)
and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i) and (ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
Our review of the record reveals that the family court did not clearly err in determining that a
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). The lower court record showed that the
children remained in care for almost three continuous years while respondents attended counseling and
therapy to address the father’s physical abuse and the mother’s previous failures to protect the children
-1
from abuse, but that after all this time respondents achieved only minimal progress. The father failed to
internalize any behavioral modification of his aggressive, impulsive and violent behavior or accept
responsibility for his abusive behaviors, and testimony indicated that the father would require several
years of involved therapy to incorporate behavioral changes. The mother continued throughout the
children’s placement in care to excuse the father’s inappropriate behaviors, and demonstrated a
reluctance to stand up against the father and a continued lack of appropriate interaction with the
children. In light of respondents’ lack of progress, termination was warranted pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i). Thus, we need not specifically address the
alternative grounds cited by the family court. Although the father contends that the court neglected
consideration of his testimony that his counseling and therapy greatly benefited him, the court certainly
was aware of the father’s testimony and necessarily discredited it in reaching the decision to terminate
respondents’ parental rights. Miller, supra.
Furthermore, in light of evidence showing each child’s special needs, respondents’ prior failures
to either recognize the children’s needs or secure recommended treatment for those needs, and
respondents’ failures to otherwise show that the children’s return to the parental home clearly would
serve the children’s best interests, the family court properly concluded that termination of respondents’
parental rights best served the children’s interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5).
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/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.
