IN RE WASHINGTON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRADFORD WASHINGTON,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 5, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254422
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2002-000086-NA
HARRY BROWN JOHNSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHARLENE WASHINGTON,
Respondent.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murray and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that clear and convincing evidence
established at least one of the grounds for terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights. In
re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent-appellant was the
putative father of the minor child and never took any action to become the legal father, never
sought custody of the child, and had not seen the one and one-half-year-old child in the three
months that preceded the termination hearing. Respondent-appellant admitted that he could not
provide proper care and custody without assistance. There was no indication in the record that
respondent-appellant knew how to care for a two-year-old, and a psychological evaluation
showed that respondent-appellant had no parenting skills.
Respondent-appellant was
unemployed and benefited from the charity of others. Finally, respondent-appellant’s cessation
of his efforts to become the child’s legal father after one phone call, in which he purportedly
received the “run-around,” calls into question his ability to undertake the commitment of caring
for a young child. This evidence was sufficient to establish subsections (a)(ii), (g), and (j).
-1-
Although we conclude that the trial court erred in determining that the evidence
established subsection (c)(i), because respondent-appellant was not a respondent in the initial
petition, this error was harmless because other statutory grounds were proven by clear and
convincing evidence. In re Powers, 244 Mich App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472 (2000).
Finally, the evidence did not establish that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was contrary to the minor child’s best interests, and the trial court therefore did not err in
terminating his parental rights. Trejo, supra at 357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.