IN RE MARY JEANETTE KERN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MARY J. KERN, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 3, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
JOSPEN MATTHEW KERN, a/k/a JOSEPHEN
MATTHEW KERN,
No. 220163
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-325973
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SHERRY LEE WALTERS,
Respondent.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Sawyer and White, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating his parental
rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (h), (i) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), (h), (i) and (j). We affirm.
Although respondent-appellant contends that the trial court erred in terminating his parental
rights, he does not direct his arguments at the statutory criteria for the various statutory grounds under
which his parental rights were terminated. Rather, he contends that termination was improper because
petitioner failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite him with his child.
It is the policy of this state to keep children with their natural parents. However, reunification
efforts are not required when it would cause a substantial risk of harm to the child’s life, physical health,
or mental well-being. MCL 712A.18f; MSA 27.3178(598.18f); See also Tallman v Milton, 192
Mich App 606, 614-615; 482 NW2d 187 (1992); In re Springer, 172 Mich App 466, 474-475; 432
NW2d 342 (1988). Under appropriate circumstances, a court may terminate a respondent’s parental
rights at the initial dispositional hearing. MCR 5.974(D).
Here, the record indicates that respondent-appellant was serving a lengthy prison sentence and
had been incarcerated since January 1997. Further, before his incarceration, he was not visiting or
supporting his child. Although respondent-appellant claims that he offered his mother as a temporary
placement for his child during the period of his incarceration, the record indicates that petitioner made
attempts to contact respondent-appellant’s mother, but she did not respond to the inquires. Under the
circumstances, we find no merit to respondent-appellant’s claim that termination of his parental rights
was improper because further efforts at reunification were not made.
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Helene N. White
-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.
