IN RE PROBY/GREGORY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SECARREAN ARTEL PROBY,
SHANIYA NITARA PROBY, and VAN
VINCENT GREGORY, JR., Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 10, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 263630
Muskegon Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-032834-NA
WILLIE PROBY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TALESHA ROBINSON and VAN GREGORY,
SR.,
Respondents.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Smolenski and Talbot, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to his children, Secarrean and Shaniya, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (h), and (j).
We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that statutory subsections (3)(g) and (h)
were established by clear and convincing evidence and supported termination of respondentappellant’s parental rights. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161
(1989). The evidence was clear and convincing that respondent-appellant had failed to
personally provide proper care or custody for his children. Although respondent-appellant left
the children in their mother’s care following his imprisonment in May 2002, she was
subsequently deemed an unsuitable parent in March 2004 because of drug use. Upon being
notified of the children’s temporary wardship, respondent-appellant immediately asked his
mother or grandmother to step forward as caretakers for the children, but the evidence showed
that neither one was suitable. Respondent-appellant’s mother had a history of protective services
involvement and an open protective services case, and his grandmother was elderly, recovering
-1-
from cancer, and struck a protective services worker.
acquainted with their paternal relatives.
Additionally, the children were not
Respondent-appellant’s earliest release date from prison was May 2009, so there was no
reasonable expectation that he would personally be able to provide proper care or custody for the
children within a reasonable time. Although respondent-appellant stated that there were
numerous paternal relatives suitable to care for the children, the ones who came forward in the
year following the children’s removal were not suitable. The children would be deprived of a
normal home life for a period of at least two years following the termination hearing unless they
were afforded the permanency that adoption offered.
It does not appear that the trial court relied upon statutory subsection (3)(j) in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights, and because the children could not be returned to
respondent-appellant’s care, that subsection was inapplicable.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The children did not enjoy a parent-child bond with
respondent-appellant because he was imprisoned when Secarrean was an infant and before
Shaniya’s birth. It was uncertain whether respondent-appellant would be released from prison in
four years or whether he would be a suitable parent following his release. Meanwhile, the
children’s maternal relative placements offered the children the security of adoption.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
