IN RE AHMARI DOMINIQUE SWAIN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AHMARI DOMINIQUE SWAIN,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 7, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254452
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-548323-NA
CYRUS COLLINS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Saad and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (g), and (j). We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in 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). There was clear and convincing evidence that respondent had
deserted the minor child because respondent himself testified that he had never seen the child,
had any contact with him, or provided any financial or emotional support for the child. The
same evidence established that respondent had failed to provide proper care and custody for the
child and that there was no reasonable likelihood that he could do so in a reasonable amount of
time. Although respondent’s failure to know the child was caused in part by the mother’s actions
in keeping the child from respondent, the trial court correctly found that respondent could have
made a better effort to find the child. The minor child was seven years old at the time of the
trial. Respondent, who had been incarcerated for three years, was not scheduled to be released
from prison for another year. There was also clear and convincing evidence that the minor child
would be harmed if he was placed in respondent’s custody. Respondent has a lengthy criminal
record, including two felony and at least four misdemeanor convictions. There was no evidence
that respondent would be able to change his lifestyle in any manner within a reasonable time.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent had never seen the minor child and there was no
-1-
bond between them. Respondent is essentially a stranger to the minor child. It would not be in
the child’s best interests to be in respondent’s custody given respondent’s incarceration and
criminal history. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to
the minor child.
We also conclude that the record does not support respondent’s claim that he was denied
due process. First, the trial court looked at the totality of the circumstances, recognizing that
respondent was to be released from prison in another year and respondent’s desire to make a
home for the minor child. Nevertheless, the trial court found the factors favoring termination to
be compelling. Second, respondent’s claim that he was denied counsel at trial is not cause for
reversal. Respondent failed to establish his right to an attorney when he failed to demonstrate
legal parentage according to MCR 3.903(A)(7).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
