IN RE MACINTOSH DAE'JUAN HARRELL MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MACINTOSH DAE’JUAN
HARRELL, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 22, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 250795
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-382683
CHARLES HARRELL,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Murphy and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights
to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err by finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The principal condition that led to adjudication was respondent’s
striking the child with an electrical cord, leaving scars on his back. The evidence clearly
established that respondent failed to effectively address his anger management problem. He
remained guarded through three months of therapy addressing this issue, then delayed entering
anger management classes for more than a year, finally attending only three of nine sessions.
Respondent was again referred for anger management classes, which he did not attend. Given
respondent’s failure to address this problem during the more than two and a half-year pendency
of this case, we find that the trial court did not clearly err by concluding that there was no
reasonable likelihood that the problem would be rectified in the reasonable future and that there
was a reasonable likelihood that the child would be harmed if returned to respondent’s home.
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j).
Respondent also failed to provide proper care and custody for the minor child when he
struck him with an electrical cord. MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). The trial court did not clearly err by
finding that respondent would be unable to provide proper care and custody for the minor child
in the reasonable future. In addition to his failure to resolve his anger management problem,
respondent lacked a suitable residence at the time of the termination trial, failed to submit
random drug screens as required by the parent-agency agreement, submitted one screen that was
-1-
positive for marijuana, and appeared for visits with the minor child smelling of alcohol.
Significantly, respondent failed to visit the minor child for months at a time, despite being
offered transportation to the visits. Respondent’s failure to carry out the parent-agency
agreement supplies evidence of his inability to provide proper care and custody for the minor
child. In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 214; 661 NW2d 216 (2003).
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was not clearly contrary to the best interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5). The
minor child clearly expressed that he did not wish respondent’s parental rights to be terminated.
However, respondent failed to adequately address major impediments to reunification, notably
anger management, housing and substance abuse issues. And the evidence indicated that the
minor child was doing quite well in his placement. On the whole record, we cannot conclude
that the trial court clearly erred by finding that termination was not clearly contrary to the best
interests of the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
