IN RE KEVIN ANDREW WILSON TRAYER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KEVIN ANDREW WILSON
TRAYER, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 16, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 228355
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-037993-NA
ROGER TRAYER,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and McDonald and Saad, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent father appeals as of right from the family court’s order terminating his
parental rights to his minor child, Kevin, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) (more than 182 days have elapsed, conditions leading to the
adjudication continue to exist, and no reasonable likelihood exists that they will be rectified
within a reasonable time), MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) (without regard
to intent, parent fails to provide care and custody and there exists no reasonable likelihood of
change within reasonable amount of time), and MCL 712A.19b(3)(j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the parent,
that the child will be harmed if he is returned to the parent’s home). We affirm.
In making a termination decision, the family court must engage in a two-step analysis.
First, it must determine if a statutory ground for termination has been established by clear and
convincing evidence. In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 632; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). Second,
if a statutory ground has been established, the family court must terminate parental rights unless
there exists clear evidence on the whole record that it is not in the child’s best interests to
terminate parental rights. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 354; 603 NW2d 787 (2000).
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, the opinion of the family court, and the
parties’ briefs. The record demonstrates that the conditions leading to adjudication continue to
exist and have little likelihood of improving within a reasonable time. We are not persuaded that
the family court erred in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were met and that it
-1-
was in the best interests of the child to terminate the parental rights. Accordingly, we find no
abuse of discretion by the trial court in terminating respondent’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Henry William Saad
-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.
