IN RE HARMON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ARYIAN KALISE HARMON
and PARIS ALISE HARMON, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 8, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 282295
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2007-000009-NA
HEATHER R. HARMON and JESSIE L.
HARMON,
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: White, P.J., and Hoekstra and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from a circuit court order terminating their parental rights
to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory ground for termination was
proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re Archer, 277 Mich App 71, 73; 744 NW2d 1
(2007). Respondents had ceded custody of the children to the mother’s parents and step-parents
in 2004, and had little contact with them over the next 2-1/2 years. The alternative caretakers
were unsuitable either because their own parental rights had been terminated or because of
involvement with drugs. Respondent mother made little progress with the service plan, then
violated her probation by using drugs again and was sentenced to a two-year prison term.
Respondent father was incarcerated throughout the proceedings and expressed no interest in
planning for the children.
Contrary to respondents’ argument, petitioner was not required to prove that respondents
would neglect their child for the long-term future as held in Fritts v Krugh, 354 Mich 97, 114; 92
NW2d 604 (1958), overruled on other grounds in In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 444; 505 NW2d
834 (1993). The Fritts decision predates the enactment of MCL 712A.19b, which now sets forth
the criteria for termination. Further, the evidence did not clearly show that termination of
respondents’ parental rights was not in the children’s best interests. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
354, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); MCL 712A.19b(5).
-1-
We also reject the claim that the trial court deprived respondent father of his right to
counsel. The court rules require the court to advise a parent of his right to counsel at the parent’s
first court appearance. MCR 3.915(B)(1)(a). The court rules also require the court to appoint
counsel for a parent at any hearing that is conducted if the parent requests appointment and it
appears from the record that he is unable to afford to hire counsel. MCR 3.915(B)(1)(b).
Respondent father never appeared in this action and there is no indication in the record that he
ever requested the appointment of counsel. Therefore, he has failed to establish a plain error
with respect to this unpreserved issue. See Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC v Plante & Moran, PLLC,
276 Mich App 146, 162; 742 NW2d 409 (2007); Kloian v Schwartz, 272 Mich App 232, 242;
725 NW2d 671 (2006).
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
