IN RE HANDSOME JACKSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of FANTASIA PIERCE, HANDSOME
JACKSON, and TYRONE BISCH, JR., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 2, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 206577
Muskegon Juvenile Court
LC No. 94-020943 NA
SHERRIE PIERCE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SHAUN BURCH, a/k/a SHON BURCH,
a/k/a SHAWN BURCH, and TYRONE BISCH,
Respondents.
In the Matter of HANDSOME JACKSON, Minor.
__________________________________________
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 208199
Muskegon Juvenile Court
LC No. 94-020943 NA
THOMAS WYRICK,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
-1
SHERRIE PIERCE,
Respondent.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Murphy and White, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In Docket No. 206577, respondent Pierce appeals as of right from the juvenile court orders
terminating her parental rights to her three minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (h);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (h). In Docket No. 208199, respondent Wyrick appeals as
of right from the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to his minor child under MCL
712A.19b(3)(g) and (h); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) and (h). We affirm.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to both respondents. In re Miller, 433 Mich
331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989); MCR 5.974(I).
In Docket No. 206577, petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent
Pierce, without regard to intent, failed to provide proper care or custody for her children and that there
was no reasonable expectation that she would be able to do so within a reasonable time considering the
ages of the children. MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g). We therefore find it
unnecessary to determine whether the court erred in finding that termination was also warranted under
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (h); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (h).1 See In re Perry, 193
Mich App 648; 484 NW2d 768 (1992). Further, respondent Pierce failed to show that termination of
her parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interest. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hamlet (After Remand), 225 Mich App 505, 523; 571 NW2d 750
(1997). Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent Pierce’s parental rights to the
three children.
In Docket No. 208199, petitioner also established by clear and convincing evidence that
respondent Wyrick’s length of incarceration would deprive his child of a normal home for a period
exceeding two years, that respondent had not provided for the child’s proper care and custody, and
that there was no reasonable expectation that he would be able to do so within a reasonable time
considering the age of the child. The evidence established grounds for termination under MCL
712A.19b(3)(g) and (h); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) and (h). Respondent Wyrick has also failed to
show that termination of his parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hamlet (After Remand), supra at 523. Thus, the
juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent Wyrick’s parental rights to the child.
-2
Finally, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent Wyrick’s request
for an adjournment and continuance so that he could subpoena his parents as witnesses. Soumis v
Soumis, 218 Mich App 27, 32; 553 NW2d 619 (1996). Respondent had waived notice of all hearings
in this matter at an earlier proceeding. He cannot now claim lack of notice as grounds for adjournment.
See Bloesma v Auto Club Ins Ass’n (After Remand), 190 Mich App 686, 691; 476 NW2d 487
(1991).
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Helene N. White
1
Accordingly, we also find it unnecessary to address respondent Pierce’s claim that 182 days had not
elapsed after the issuance of an initial dispositional order when the court terminated her parental rights as
required by MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i). Because we have concluded
that termination was justified under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g), which
imposes no such time requirement, any error that might have resulted by noncompliance with MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) was harmless.
-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.
