IN RE CODY ALAN BARROW MINOR

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of CODY ALAN BARROW, Minor. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED December 14, 2006 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 269987 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 04-430277-NA TERRY DOREY, Respondent-Appellant, and KIMBERLY ANN BARROW, Respondent. Before: Murphy, P.J., and Smolenski and Kelly, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. In order to terminate respondent’s parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been met by clear and convincing evidence. In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 WN2d 293 (1993). We review the trial court’s findings in termination proceedings for clear error. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 256-257; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. Despite being offered nearly two years of services, respondent-appellant failed to adequately address his substance abuse issues. Respondent-appellant continued to test positive for cocaine and failed to comply with random drug screens. Respondent-appellant was not invested in his treatment, as evidenced by the fact that he did not candidly reveal to his therapist his several relapses while in therapy; thus, there was no reasonable likelihood that respondent-appellant would achieve a drug-free lifestyle within a reasonable time. Furthermore, at the time of termination, respondent-appellant lacked -1- suitable housing. Based upon the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it terminated respondent-appellant’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). Finally, the evidence failed to establish that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). The child needed stability and permanency in his life to facilitate his continued growth and development. Affirmed. /s/ William B. Murphy /s/ Michael R. Smolenski /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.