IN RE CLARK SMITH MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CLARK SMITH, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 12, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 275883
Shiawassee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-011361-NA
DUANE SMITH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ELIZABETH SMITH,
Respondent.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Sawyer and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Duane Smith appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory ground for termination had
been proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re IEM, 233 Mich App 438, 450; 592 NW2d
751 (1999). There was evidence that respondent was able to care for the child, but did not put
that willingness and ability into practice. A psychological evaluation indicated that respondent
had an antisocial personality disorder that predisposed him to resist authority and engage in
criminal activity, and that he was not amenable to treatment. Respondent was convicted of
receiving or concealing stolen property while the child was in care and was sentenced to
probation, which he later violated. He attended parenting classes but showed little interest in the
topics presented and disrupted class by arguing with the instructor. He sometimes interacted
appropriately with the child during parenting time, but other times disregarded the child’s needs
and argued with the mother over who should attend to them. Respondent preferred to leave
some aspects of childcare up to the mother and could not maintain a sanitary home. Considering
that the child had been in foster care for a year and that respondent was no closer to
reunification, respondent was unlikely to be able to provide proper care and custody within a
reasonable time.
-1-
Furthermore, the evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental
rights was not in the child’s best interests. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354, 356-357; 612 NW2d
407 (2000); MCL 712A.19b(5). Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in terminating
respondent’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/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.
