IN RE JONATHON SHELTON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of J.S., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 16, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238488
Dickinson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000512-NA
JENNIFER LYNN WHITE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHARLES NEET,
Respondent.
Before: White, P.J., and Neff and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child following her voluntary release of parental rights. We affirm.
This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not reversibly err in failing to fully advise respondent of her rights
prior to accepting her release of parental rights. A full advice of rights is required prior to
accepting a release of parental rights under the Adoption Code, MCLA 710.21 et seq., but is not
required under the Juvenile Code, MCLA 712A.1 et seq. Respondent’s release at the conclusion
of over one year of involuntary child protective proceedings did not convert her proceeding
under the Juvenile Code to a proceeding under the Adoption Code. In re Toler, 193 Mich App
474, 477-478; 484 NW2d 672 (1992). Therefore, the trial court was not required to provide
respondent with a full advice of rights.
Additionally, the trial court did not err in not stating, either orally or in writing, its
findings of fact, conclusions of law and the statutory basis for termination. Generally, such a
statement is required upon termination of parental rights. MCLA 712A.19b(1); MCR
5.974(G)(1) and (3). However, when a parent releases her parental rights under the Juvenile
-1-
Code, the trial court need not announce a statutory basis for termination. In re Toler, supra at
477. The signing of the release and the trial court’s signing of the order terminating parental
rights were indicated on the record.
Finally, the performance of respondent’s counsel did not fall so far below an objective
standard of reasonableness, and his representation did not so prejudice respondent, that she was
deprived of a fair legal proceeding. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 303; 521 NW2d 797
(1994).
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/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.
