IN RE SKYE MCNAMEE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SKYE MCNAMEE, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 14, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 257324
Muskegon Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-031708-NA
JUSTIN MCNAMEE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Sawyer and Wilder, 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)(b)(i) and (c)(i). We affirm.
Respondent does not argue on appeal that the statutory grounds for termination were not
established by clear and convincing evidence, challenging only the trial court’s determination
regarding the minor child’s best interests. The trial court did not clearly err when it found that it
was in the best interests of the minor child to terminate respondent’s parental rights. The court’s
finding was based on and supported by evidence from the entire record. MCL 712A.19b(5); In
re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The psychologist reported that
respondent did not accept responsibility for his problem behavior, has significant problems with
anger management, demonstrated the capacity for deception in order to avoid punishment for
wrongdoing, needs treatment for anger management, and still continues to present a risk of harm
to the minor child. His prognosis was poor. The FIA representative testified that the injury to
the minor child occurred because of respondent’s problems controlling his anger and opined that
respondent continues to pose a risk to the minor child. In addition, respondent’s witnesses from
Hackley Hospital’s Maternal and Infant Support Program agreed that the injury received by the
minor child was not the kind one would expect from someone who knows how to handle a child
appropriately. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights
to the child.
-1-
We further find no merit to respondent’s argument that the order of termination violates
MCL 712A.19b(5). The statute does not require that the trial court’s best interests finding be
included in the order of termination.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
