IN RE KYLE ANDREW DESCHENEAU MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KYLE ANDREW
DESCHENEAU, KIRA NICOLE VLIETSTRA,
and BRANDON JAMES VLIETSTRA, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 22, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235448
Van Buren Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-012319
MARCIA DESCHENEAU,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LEWIS CARTER,
Respondent.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Doctoroff and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Marcia Descheneau appeals as of right the order terminating her parental
rights to her son, Kyle Descheneau. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
A petition was filed seeking termination of respondent’s parental rights under MCL
712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). The trial court found that both statutory grounds were established by
clear and convincing evidence, and that termination was in the best interest of the child. Thus,
the trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights.
Under MCL 712A.19b(3), petitioner bears the burden of proving at least one ground for
termination. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 355; 617 NW2d 407 (2000). Once the petitioner
has presented clear and convincing evidence that persuades the court that a ground for
termination is established, termination of parental rights is mandatory unless the court finds that
termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. Id. at 355-356. Decisions terminating
parental rights are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 356.
-1-
Here, the testimony showed that respondent made some progress in her counseling, but
there was no reasonable likelihood that she would be able to provide proper care within a
reasonable time. Respondent had not been able to provide a stable environment for the child,
who was able to make progress after he was removed from respondent’s home. Thus, we are not
persuaded that the trial clearly erred by terminating respondent’s parental rights pursuant to
MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).1 Finally, we are not persuaded that the trial court clearly erred by failing
to conclude that termination would not be in the best interest of the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Martin D. Doctoroff
/s/ Donald S. Owens
1
In addition, respondent does not contest the trial court finding that termination was proper
under MCL 719A.19b(3)(j).
-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.
