IN RE DERRIYON DARRELL MCCREARY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DERRIYON DARRELL
McCREARY, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 21, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 268925
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-348199-NA
DESHANA MARIE WHITE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DARRELL McCREARY,
Respondent.
Before: White, P.J. and Zahra and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental
rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (g), (i), (j), (k)(i), and (l). We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Petitioner filed a petition for permanent custody after Derriyon was born premature and
testing positive for cocaine and opiates. Respondent-appellant reported that she did not receive
prenatal care, used cocaine four days before the child’s birth, was homeless and had no income.
Respondent-appellant admitted that her parental rights to a daughter were previously terminated,
and the record establishes that respondent-appellant was provided with a treatment plan in that
case, which she did not successfully complete. Respondent-appellant appeared to be under the
influence of drugs when she visited Derriyon at the hospital, and her visits were suspended days
later. Respondent-appellant contacted the foster care worker only once regarding Derriyon and
did not appear for trial, which was held more than 91 days after visitation was suspended.
Based on the above facts, we find that the trial court did not clearly err in holding that
petitioner established MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (g), (i), (j), (k)(i), and (l) by clear and convincing
-1-
evidence. MCR 3.977(J). Termination of parental rights is mandatory if the trial court finds that
the petitioner established a statutory ground for termination, unless the court finds that
termination is clearly not in the child’s best interest. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 344; 612 NW2d
407 (2000). The trial court did not clearly err in its best interests determination where
respondent-appellant had no bond with her son, only contacted the foster care worker once to
find out how he was doing, and had a long-term drug abuse problem.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
