IN RE BRANDY T SMITH-WILLIAMS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KESHAWN SMITH, Minor
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, f/k/a
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 20, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
TONETTA DELRAY SMITH,
No. 194884
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 94-315264
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KEITH MCBRIDE,
Respondent.
In the Matter of BRANDY T. SMITH-WILLIAMS,
Minor
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, f/k/a
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
TONETTA DELRAY SMITH,
Respondent-Appellant,
No. 201179
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 94-315264
and
ROYNELL RAMON WILLIAMS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of BRANDY T. SMITH-WILLIAMS,
Minor
__________________________________________
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, f/k/a
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 201549
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 94-315264
ROYNELL WILLIAMS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TONETTA DELRAY SMITH,
Respondent.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and O’Connell and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In No. 194884, respondent Smith appeals as of right from the juvenile court order terminating
her parental rights to KeShawn Smith under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (ii), (g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (ii), (g) and (j). We affirm.
In No. 201179, respondent Smith appeals as of right from the juvenile court order terminating
her parental rights to Brandy T. Smith-Williams under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (i); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (i). We affirm.
-2
In No. 201549, respondent Williams appeals as of right from the juvenile court order
terminating his parental rights to Brandy T. Smith-Williams under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g). We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In No. 194884, the juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for
termination under subsection (3)(c)(i), (g) and (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence.
However, the court clearly erred in terminating respondent Smith’s parental rights to KeShawn under
subsection (3)(c)(ii) because there was not clear and convincing evidence that “other conditions”
existed that caused KeShawn to come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. MCR 5.974(I); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473;
564 NW2d 156 (1997). This error was harmless, however, given the existence of the other statutory
grounds for termination. Further, respondent Smith failed to show that termination of her parental rights
was clearly not in the child’s best interest. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5).
Accordingly, the juvenile court did not clearly err in terminating her parental rights to KeShawn.
In No. 201179, the juvenile court did not err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
under subsection (3)(c)(i) and (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974; In
re Miller, supra, at 337; In re Hall-Smith, supra, at 472-473. It is unclear whether respondent
Smith’s parental rights to Brandy were properly terminated under subsection (3)(g) based on the
existing record. Any error was harmless, however, given the existence of the other statutory grounds
for termination. Further, respondent Smith failed to show that termination of her parental rights was
clearly not in the child’s best interest. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5). Accordingly,
the juvenile court did not clearly err in terminating her parental rights to Brandy.
In No. 201549, it is unclear whether respondent Williams’ parental rights to Brandy were
properly terminated under subsection (3)(g) based upon the existing record. Accordingly, we remand
pursuant to MCR 7.216(A)(5) to allow additional testimony regarding how frequently Brandy was
improperly cared for during home visits with respondent.
The juvenile court orders terminating respondent Smith’s parental rights to the children are
affirmed. In No. 201549, we remand for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do
not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-3
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.
