IN RE SAMARIA JOHNIAH DAVIS-ODOM MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SAMARIA JOHNIAH DAVISODOM, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 10, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 279583
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 91-296679
JOHNATHAN DAVIS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ALFREDIA ODOM,
Respondent.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Markey and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Johnathan Davis appeals as of right from an order terminating his parental
rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), (j), and (m). 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 statutory grounds to terminate
respondent’s parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. 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 is clear that respondent voluntarily relinquished his parental rights to his
daughter Aja on March 5, 2007, after proceedings under section 2(b) had been initiated, thus
establishing MCL 712A.19b(3)(m). There is no requirement in subsection (m) with regard to
rehabilitation attempts.1 Although the trial court need only find the evidence clear and
1
The trial court erred in finding MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) established with respect to respondent.
(continued…)
-1-
convincing pursuant to one statutory subsection in order to terminate parental rights, the court
did not clearly err in also relying on MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). Respondent knew that
respondent-mother abused drugs and gave birth to a drug-addicted baby a year before the minor
child was born, and he was ordered to stay away from her. Respondent, however, was unable to
do so and continued contact with respondent-mother, resulting in another pregnancy and the
minor child being born with respondent-mother having no prenatal care and once again testing
positive for drugs when she gave birth. In addition, respondent’s care plan was to have his
mother care for the minor child while he was at work. The Clinic for Child Study done on
respondent a year earlier stated that respondent was unable to care for his own basic needs, and
respondent testified that his mother heard voices. Further, respondent had been given a year to
change during the proceedings concerning Aja, but he was unable to do so.
Finally, the evidence did not establish that termination was contrary to the best interests
of the minor child, and the trial court did not clearly err in its best interests determination. MCL
712A.19b(5).
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
(…continued)
This section applied only to the minor child’s mother.
-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.
