IN RE SILAS/KELLER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JANE ADERO SILAS, SANENA
JOY SILAS and MICAH KENU KELLER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 8, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 221579
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-353349
TAHIRAH JOY SILAS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MICHAEL LEE KELLER, MICHAEL CLAY, and
ALPHONZO DEGRAFFENREID,
Respondents.
In the Matter of JANE ADERO SILAS, SANENA
JOY SILAS and MICAH KENU KELLER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 221841
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-353349
MICHAEL CLAY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
-1-
TAHIRAH JOY SILAS, MICHAEL LEE KELLER
and ALPHONZO DEGRAFFENREID,
Respondents.
Before: Bandstra, C.J., and Fitzgerald and D. B. Leiber*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents-appellants appeal as of right the family court order terminating their parental
rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), (h), and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii),(g), (h) and (j). We affirm. This case is being decided without
oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
With regard to respondent mother, the record reveals that before the children entered care,
respondent left them unattended, inadequately supervised them with resultant harm, and did not
consistently maintain suitable housing.
Respondent, who was mentally unstable and
unemployed, failed to adequately comply with the treatment plan designed to improve her
parenting abilities. With regard to respondent father, the record reveals that he did not visit or
support the child. The record also reveals that it was unlikely that he would be paroled anytime
soon so that he could visit or support the child.
Under these circumstances, the family court did not clearly err in finding that
§§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g) and (j) were each established by clear and convincing evidence with
respect to respondent Tahirah Joy Silas, and that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (h) were each
established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to respondent Michael Clay. Further,
the evidence did not show that termination of each respondent-appellant’s parental rights was
clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re
Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Dennis B. Leiber
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-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.
