IN RE DAVON DESHAWN LYTTLE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DAVON DESHAWN LYTTLE,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 17, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 225504
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 81-227250
BARBARA MITCHELL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DARNELL LYTTLE,
Respondent.
In the Matter of DAVON DESHAWN LYTTLE,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 225594
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 81-227250
DARNELL LYTTLE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BARBARA MITCHELL,
-1-
Respondent.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Sawyer and F.L. Borchard*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondents appeal as of right from the family court order terminating their parental
rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (i), and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(c)(i), (g), (i), and (j). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The family court erred in terminating respondents' parental rights under § 19b(3)(c)(i),
because 182 days had not lapsed since the issuance of the initial dispositional order. However,
the family court did not clearly err in finding that the remaining 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 respondents’ parental rights were previously terminated to
another child, and neither respondent demonstrated an ability to care for the minor child, who
was born with syphilis and fetal alcohol syndrome. Additionally, neither respondent had a legal
source of income or suitable housing. Further, the evidence did not show that termination of
respondents' parental rights was clearly not in the child'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). Thus, the
family court did not err in terminating respondents' parental rights to the child.
Respondent Mitchell contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to move to re-open
the proofs so that the court could consider evidence that she successfully completed a drugtreatment program. However, the record indicates that counsel asked the court to consider the
information in question, but the court declined to do so. Thus, it is not apparent from the record
that counsel was deficient in his performance. In any event, respondent has failed to demonstrate
that any alleged deficiency prejudiced her case or that the result of the proceeding would have
been different had the information been considered. People v Poole, 218 Mich App 702, 718;
555 NW2d 485 (1996).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Fred L. Borchard
* 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.
