IN RE ANTIANNA LIONETTE SMITH MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ANTIANNA LIONETTE SMITH,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 2, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254153
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-396851
PORTIA NISHELLE JENKINS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANTONIO SMITH,
Respondent.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Wilder and Schuette, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (i), (j), and (l). We
affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that a basis for termination under § 19b(3)(l)
was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624,
633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). It is
undisputed that respondent’s parental rights to Antianna’s older siblings, Destiny and Antoinette,
were terminated in July 2001 after Antoinette suffered serious and lasting injuries consistent with
shaken baby syndrome. Under the plain language of the statute, no further proof is required.
Because only one ground for termination is required, we need not address the other statutory
grounds relied upon by the trial court. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 360; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant parental rights was
clearly not in the best interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 356-357.
Indeed, the evidence showed that the child was removed from respondent-appellant’s care at the
age of two months and that respondent-appellant, despite having been offered numerous services
-1-
for years, both before and after the child’s birth, was still not sufficiently ready to care properly
for the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.
