IN RE JASMYNE MCKINNEY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JASMYNE MCKINNEY, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
August 21, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 283886
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-122026-NA
TOMMY PARKER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BAKIR MCKINNEY,
Respondent.
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Zahra and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Parker appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating his parental
rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(i), (a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We
affirm.
Although termination of respondent’s parental rights was not appropriate under §
19b(3)(a)(i), given that respondent was identifiable, the trial court did not clearly err in finding
that the remaining statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing
evidence. MCR 3.977(G); In re Archer, 277 Mich App 71, 73; 744 NW2d 1 (2007). Due to his
repeated incarcerations, respondent had little involvement in the child’s life. When given an
opportunity to plan for the child, he left the foster care worker’s officer before a service plan
could be drawn up and did not thereafter participate in the case or seek custody of the child. At
the time the supplemental petition was filed, respondent was once again incarcerated for a
controlled substance offense.
Further, 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; 612 NW2d 407 (2000);
MCL 712A.19b(5). While the court may continue temporary wardship and place a child with
relatives if it is in the child’s best interests to do so, In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 53; 480
-1-
NW2d 293 (1991), there was no basis for finding that it was in the child’s best interests to place
her with an unrelated adult who could not communicate with the child in her primary language
and had not even seen her for more than a year. Therefore, the trial court did not err in
terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child. In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Bill Schuette
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
