IN RE CIARA DANIELS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CIARA DANIELS, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 2, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 222252
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-000763-NA
CHARLES EDWARD DANIELS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CLARA THREATS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of CIARA DANIELS, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 222268
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-000763-NA
CLARA THREATS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHARLES DANIELS,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Neff, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from a family court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
The family court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence.
MCL 712A.19b(3); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3); MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
Further, the evidence on the whole record did not establish that termination of respondents’
parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interest. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Here,
contrary to respondent-father’s argument, he did not substantially comply with the services
because he did not have appropriate housing, he had not addressed his substance abuse, his
employment was unstable, and he had little relationship with the child. With regard to
respondent-mother, she had not bonded with the child, she had not demonstrated the ability to
safely care for the child, she had little interaction with the child, and she did not have suitable
housing. Thus, the family court did not clearly err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to
the child. Id. at 356.
We further reject respondent-father’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of
counsel. The mere fact that substitute counsel appeared at three of the hearings does not in itself
establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Rather, the record shows that counsel adequately
protected respondent-father’s rights. Consequently, respondent-father has failed to show either
that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that the
representation was prejudicial. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 302-303; 521 NW2d 797
(1994); In re Simon, 171 Mich App 443, 447; 431 NW2d 71 (1988).
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
