IN RE WYLIE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of EUGENE DOUGLAS WYLIE
and BILLIE RAY WYLIE, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 14, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
DOUGLAS WYLIE and MARGARET WYLIE,
No. 270614
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2004-000025-NA
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: Meter, P.J., and O’Connell and Davis, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondents appeal as of right from the order terminating their parental rights under
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Termination of parental rights is appropriate where petitioner proves by clear and
convincing evidence at least one ground for termination. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 355; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). Once this has occurred, the trial court shall terminate parental rights unless it
finds that the termination is clearly not in the best interests of the children. Id. at 353; MCL
712A.19b(5). This Court reviews the trial court’s findings under the clearly erroneous standard.
MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999).
Respondents do not challenge any of the trial court’s unfavorable factual findings, but
rather assert that they might do better if given more time and more intensive services.
Respondents cite In re Jackson, 189 Mich App 61, 70; 472 NW2d 38 (1991), to support this
contention. The Jackson Court stated that, although the respondents were less than ideal parents,
they loved their children. Id. This Court found that petitioner failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the conditions that led to adjudication would not be remedied within a
reasonable time or that there was no reasonable expectation that the respondents would be able to
provide proper care within a reasonable time. Id.
Like the respondents in Jackson, respondents here are less than ideal parents who
obviously love their children. In this case, however, clear and convincing evidence was
presented that respondents will not be able to provide proper care within a reasonable time
-1-
considering the children’s ages. Here, petitioner intervened because Billie’s teeth had rotted so
badly that the pain drove him to tears, the gas was shut off at the family’s residence, and Eugene
was not going to school. The trial court found that both children had serious dental issues, which
in Eugene’s case probably meant total reconstruction of his mouth. Respondent’s neglect of
their parenting responsibilities also led to severe developmental and educational problems. One
of the children was twelve years old and still in diapers merely because he did not want to use a
toilet. The family’s mobile home was crowded, often without a major utility service, and
otherwise unfit. The father’s employment history was seasonal, limited, and spotty. The mother
was unemployed and remained unemployed despite assurances that she would seek work.
Nearly two years after the court took jurisdiction, respondents had made no headway in
developing effective parenting skills, the mother had only applied with two employers, the father
had no employment of consequence, and the housing situation remained unaltered.
Don Perrin, the caseworker, indicated that he regularly told respondents how to improve
their chances of having the children returned to their care, but respondents never implemented
his suggestions or achieved the goals of the case plan. In light of the amount of time respondents
were given to achieve basic goals, and considering their negligible improvement in that time,
Perrin testified that respondents would not be able to meet the children’s needs within a
reasonable amount of time or any time in the foreseeable future. The summary he prepared for
final termination proceedings echoed this sentiment.
The evidence that respondents failed to remedy the deficiencies in their parenting skills,
employment, and housing supports the trial court’s finding that respondents would not be able to
provide proper care or custody within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages and that
there was a reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed if returned to their care.
Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that clear and convincing evidence was presented
warranting termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).
At the time of the termination hearing, respondents were not able to provide for their
children. Although there was a concern about how the children would react to the termination of
respondents’ parental rights, there was clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the
children’s best interests. Therefore, the evidence did not demonstrate that termination of
respondents’ parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. In re Trejo, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-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.
