IN RE SHA'DIMON GILLESPIE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SHA’DIMON GILLESPIE,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 21, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255555
Mason Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-000108-NA
ERIC LEE GILLESPIE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Wilder and Schuette.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(g) was established by clear and
convincing evidence.1 MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999);
In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Despite respondent’s argument to the
contrary, the trial court properly considered respondent’s incarceration in determining whether
he failed to provide proper care and custody for Sha’Dimon and whether he would be able to do
so within a reasonable time, considering the child’s age. In re Perry, 193 Mich App 648, 649651; 484 NW2d 768 (1992). Respondent had been absent for much of Sha’Dimon’s young life
and would be imprisoned for at least fifteen additional months following the termination hearing.
He had a lengthy history of violent crime and had been imprisoned several times before his
current incarceration.
1
Because only one statutory ground is required to support termination of parental rights, we need
not address respondent’s arguments regarding the other statutory subsections.
-1-
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly not in the best interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.
