IN RE DAVIDSON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SHAINA DAVIDSON and
CASEY DAVIDSON, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 7, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 259205
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-000038
TRINA LYNN KLEIN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHAD DAVIDSON,
Respondent.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Fort Hood and R.S. Gribbs*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant Trina Lynn Klein appeals as of right from the trial court order
terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), (j), and (l).
We affirm.
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error.1 If the trial
court determines that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence the existence of
one or more statutory grounds for termination, the court must terminate the respondent’s parental
rights unless it finds from the record evidence that termination is clearly not in the child’s best
1
MCR 3.997(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
interests.2 We review the trial court’s determination regarding the child’s best interests for clear
error.3
The trial court properly found that the statutory grounds for termination were established
by clear and convincing evidence. The record revealed that, despite receiving more than two
years of services, respondent-appellant repeatedly exposed her daughters to abusive men and
situations. Respondent-appellant allowed her children to be in contact with a man who was
convicted of sexually abusing their sister, who is not a part of this appeal. Respondentappellant’s parental rights over that child were terminated in separate proceedings for this
conduct. Respondent-appellant also allowed the children to spend time with their father despite
a court order prohibiting such contact. Although there was some evidence that respondentappellant was making progress in counseling, her actions demonstrate that she did not benefit
from the services she received. Furthermore, although there was evidence of a bond between
respondent-appellant and her children, the record, as a whole, did not demonstrate that
termination was contrary to the children’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
2
MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
3
Id. at 356-357.
-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.
