IN RE JASYRI MAKAIH ORR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JASYRI MAKAIH ORR, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
July 15, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 282573
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-442865-NA
AJURA M. SMITH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TYREE TERRELL ORR,
Respondent.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Talbot and Donofrio, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Smith appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) (desertion for at least 91 days
without seeking custody); (c)(i) (the conditions that led to the adjudication continue to exist); (g)
(failure to provide proper care or custody); (i) (parental rights to the child’s sibling(s) have been
terminated due to serious and chronic neglect); (j) (the child is likely to be harmed if returned to
the parent’s home); (k)(i) (abuse of a child or sibling that included abandonment of a young
child); and (l) (parental rights to another child were terminated as a result of a proceeding under
MCL 712A.2(b) or a similar law). Because there was clear and convincing evidence to support
the statutory basis for termination, and, because respondent’s challenge regarding petitioner’s
reunification attempts lacks merit, we affirm.
Although respondent asserts that there was no clear and convincing evidence to terminate
her parental rights, she does not specifically challenge any of the statutory grounds for
-1-
termination found by the trial court.1 Instead, she argues that petitioner failed to provide her with
services toward reunification while she was in Ohio.
Generally, when a child is removed from the custody of the parents, petitioner is required
to make reasonable efforts to rectify the conditions that caused the child’s removal by adopting a
service plan. MCL 712A.18f(1), (2), and (4). The service plan must include a schedule of
services to be provided to the parent, child, and foster parent to facilitate the child’s return to his
or her home or to facilitate the child’s permanent placement. MCL 712A.18f(3)(d).
Contrary to respondent’s argument, the evidence did not show that her failure to achieve
reunification was attributable to deficient efforts by petitioner. Respondent was provided with
and completed most services. By October 2006, the primary obstacle to reunification was her
unknown housing situation. Because respondent was then living in Ohio, a referral was made to
that state’s agency for a home study, but respondent refused to cooperate. Respondent then
announced an intention to return to Michigan, so there was no point in assessing a home in which
the child would not be living. Rather than return to Michigan, however, respondent remained in
Ohio for a time and then moved to the west coast, essentially severing contact with petitioner and
her son. The evidence clearly showed that petitioner made reasonable efforts to reunify
respondent with her child, and that it was respondent who prevented any opportunity for
reunification. The trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
1
At a minimum, termination was appropriate under § 19b(3)(l), given the undisputed evidence
that respondent’s parental rights to two other children were terminated following the initiation of
child protective proceedings in California.
-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.
