IN RE COREY SCOTT CURTICE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of COREY SCOTT CURTICE, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 25, 2000
Petitioner -Appellee,
v
No. 224229
Mecosta Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-003591-NA
JEFFREY GRIFFITH,
Respondent -Appellant
and
TRACY CURTICE,
Respondent.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Neff and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-father (“respondent”) appeals as of right a family court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (j), and (k)(ii); MSA
27.3178(598.19b) (3)(b)(i), (g), (j), and (k)(ii). We affirm.
Only one statutory ground is required to terminate parental rights. In re Huisman, 230 Mich
App 372, 384-385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998). The family court did not clearly err in finding that
termination under subsection (3)(g) was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I);
Huisman, supra.
Respondent pleaded guilty to sexually abusing the minor child’s half-sister and was incarcerated
at the time of termination. Although he expected to be released within a few months, the conditions of
his probation prohibited unsupervised contact with children under sixteen for two years after his release.
These circumstances, along with respondent’s history of unstable living conditions, lack of steady
employment, and his psychiatric evaluation evidence, supported the court’s conclusion that there was no
-1
reasonable expectation that respondent could provide proper care and custody for the infant child within
a reasonable time.
Respondent does not contend that termination was clearly not in the best interests of the child.
MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5), In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472; 564
NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, we conclude that the court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental
rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
