IN RE SMITH/ARNOLD MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ANGEL SMITH and SHANIECE
ARNOLD, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 8, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 249310
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-112751-NA
STEPHANIE E. SMITH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DANIEL ARNOLD,
Respondent.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Griffin and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not err in assuming jurisdiction over the minor children. Respondentappellant abandoned the children with separate family friends without making custodial
arrangements and could not be located.1 As such, the children were without proper custody or
guardianship. MCL 712A.2(b)(1).
The trial court also did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I), now MCR 3.977(J); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent-appellant had a history of drug
1
We note that respondent-appellant did not make any financial or material preparations for the
children and failed to remain in contact with her children or with the friends she entrusted them
with.
-1-
abuse and abandonment of her children for days at a time. Although respondent-appellant spent
nearly two years completing services that resulted in reunification with the minor children,
respondent-appellant quickly relapsed into her harmful pattern of abuse and neglect.
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the evidence did not show that
termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). In
addition, the court did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to respondent-appellant to
prove that termination was not in the best interests of the children, but merely stated that no
evidence established that it was not in the children’s best interests to terminate respondentappellant’s parental rights.
Therefore, the court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to
the minor children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/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.
