IN RE SHAWNTASIA SMITH

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of SHAWNTASIA SMITH, Minor. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED September 25, 1998 Petitioner-Appellee, v SHAWN DURAND WILLIAMS and TANGELYN RACHELLE SMITH, Nos. 206795; 206903 Wayne Juvenile Court LC No. 86-254872 Respondents-Appellants. Before: Hood, P.J., and Griffin and O’Connell, JJ. MEMORANDUM. In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), (i) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), (i), and (j). We affirm. The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, respondents failed to show that termination of their parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re HallSmith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights. We need not consider respondent-father’s due process claims because he failed to raise the issues below and they are not decisive to the outcome of the case. People v Grant, 445 Mich 535, 546-547; 530 NW2d 123 (1994); In re Hildebrant, 216 Mich App 384, 389; 548 NW2d 715 (1996). In any event, our review of the record persuades us that respondent-father suffered no deprivation of due process. See In re Slis, 144 Mich App 678, 683; 375 NW2d 788 (1985). -1­ Affirmed. /s/ Harold Hood /s/ Richard Allen Griffin /s/ Peter D. O’Connell -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.