IN RE CIARA ROSE KELLY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JAYDEN NICHOLE KELLY,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
August 9, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 277223
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-029048-NA
LISA NALEVAYKO, a/k/a MICHELLE
NALEVAYKO, a/k/a MICHELLE KELLY,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of CIARA ROSE KELLY, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 277224
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-030823-NA
LISA NALEVAYKO, a/k/a MICHELLE
NALEVAYKO, a/k/a MICHELLE KELLY,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated cases, respondent appeals as of right from an order terminating her
parental rights to her children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) and (l). We affirm in each case.
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). A finding is clearly erroneous
when we are left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake was made. In re JK, 468
-1-
Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). To be clearly erroneous, a decision must be more
than maybe or probably wrong. Sours, supra. 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 parental rights unless it finds from evidence on the whole
record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo,
462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review the trial court’s decision regarding
the child’s best interests for clear error. Id. at 356-357.
We hold that clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court’s decision to
terminate respondent’s parental rights. It was undisputed that respondent’s parental rights to
another child had been terminated in proceedings brought under MCL 712A.2(b). This evidence
adequately supported the trial court’s decision to terminate respondent’s parental rights under
MCL 712A.19b(3)(l).1 The decision to terminate respondent’s parental rights in the previous
case was based largely on respondent’s failure to address her longstanding substance abuse
problem. Respondent’s abuse of drugs was a principal reason that petitioner sought termination
of her parental rights in the present cases. The evidence showed that respondent used cocaine
when she was pregnant, left an inpatient substance abuse program without permission, and
missed substance abuse counseling sessions. The trial court’s finding that prior attempts to
rehabilitate respondent were unsuccessful was not clearly erroneous. Thus, there was proper
evidentiary support for the trial court’s conclusion that termination of respondent’s parental
rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) was also warranted.2
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err when it determined that no evidence showed that
termination of respondent’s parental rights clearly was not in the children’s best interests. In re
Trejo, supra at 356-357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
1
This subsection provides that termination is warranted if “[t]he parent’s rights to another child
were terminated as a result of proceedings under section 2(b) of this chapter or a similar law of
another state.”
2
This subsection provides that termination is warranted if “[p]arental rights to 1 or more siblings
of the child have been terminated due to serious and chronic neglect or physical or sexual abuse,
and prior attempts to rehabilitate the parents have been unsuccessful.”
-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.
