IN RE HUNT MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of RONECIA JA’NAY HUNT and
LAJAI JA’NAY HUNT, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 14, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255881
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-055244-NA
DEKEYA JA’NAY HUNT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JARRETT JARED HUNT,
Respondent.
In the Matter of RONECIA JA’NAY HUNT and
LAJAI JA’NAY HUNT, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255950
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-055244-NA
JARRETT JARED HUNT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DEKEYA JA’NAY HUNT,
Respondent.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Sawyer and Wilder, JJ.
-1-
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent mother appeals as of right and respondent
father appeals by leave granted from the trial court order terminating respondent mother’s
parental rights to both of the minor children and respondent father’s parental rights to the
youngest child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (g), (j), and (k)(iii). We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that statutory grounds for termination
had been established by clear and convincing evidence and in terminating respondents’ parental
rights. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Sours,
459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). The evidence established that one of the
respondents intentionally inflicted the first- and second-degree burns upon the youngest child,
who was ten months old when she was injured. Medical testimony established that the child was
thin, slightly dehydrated, and severely burned when she was brought to the hospital, that
respondent mother probably failed to take this child to a pediatrician on a regular basis, and that
respondent father provided sporadic care of the child. Their lack of truthfulness about the child’s
injuries placed both children at risk of future harm, and their lack of credibility would make it
impossible to gauge the effectiveness of any services.
Although termination of either respondent’s parental rights could not properly be based
on MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), since there was no evidence presented that either respondent failed
to heed any warning signs that the other respondent was an abuser, the error was harmless
because the trial court properly based termination of respondents’ parental rights on the other
statutory grounds. In re Powers, 244 Mich App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472 (2000).1
Finally, the trial court’s best interests determination was not clearly erroneous. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 356-357. A review of the entire record shows that the
children’s need for safety outweighed the bond that they shared with respondents.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
1
We reject respondents’ argument that the trial court erred in basing termination on MCL
712A.19b(3)(k)(iii) because a clear reading of the statute leads us to conclude that “severe
physical abuse” includes first- and second-degree burns inflicted on such a young child.
-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.
