IN RE MATOYA ANN JONES MINOR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of MATOYA ANN JONES, ALICIA LASHAWN JONES, JIMMIE LEE NATHANJONES and SHAWANA LATRICE NATHANJONES, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED August 27, 1999 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 210642 Wayne Juvenile Court LC No. 94-314751 DARLENE MARIE JONES, Respondent-Appellant, and MELVIN FARRELL and JIMMIE NATHAN, Respondents. Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and O’Connell and R. J. Danhof*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent appeals as of right from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). 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). The evidence demonstrated that respondent failed to procure adequate housing and income, as required by her treatment plan. Further, respondent failed to show that termination of * Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ her parental rights was clearly not in the children's best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the children. Id. at 473-474. Respondent also claims that the substitution of referees during the course of the termination proceedings requires reversal. However, reversal is not required unless actual prejudice resulting from the substitution is shown. Brown v Swartz Creek Memorial Post 3720 - Veterans of Foreign Wars, Inc, 214 Mich App 15, 21; 542 NW2d 588 (1995). The record indicates that the substitute referee reviewed all pertinent materials and was able to listen to audio recordings of the prior testimony in this matter, and that respondent had earlier consented to this procedure. Under the circumstances, we conclude that actual prejudice has not been shown. Affirmed. /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Peter D. O’Connell /s/ Robert J. Danhof -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.