IN RE ASHANTI MOORE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ASHANTI MOORE, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
August 26, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 280552
Jackson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-005643-NA
SHAWN PIERRE MOORE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DIONA PITCHFORD,
Respondent.
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Zahra and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Shawn Pierre Moore appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating
his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (h), and (j). We affirm. We
decide this appeal without oral argument under MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent does not argue on appeal that the statutory grounds for termination of his
parental rights were not established by clear and convincing evidence but asserts that terminating
his parental rights, instead of placing the minor child with her paternal grandmother while he was
incarcerated, was clearly contrary to the child’s best interests. Once statutory grounds for
termination were established by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court was mandated to
terminate respondent’s parental rights unless termination was clearly contrary to the minor
child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354, 356-357; 612 NW2d
407 (2000).
The evidence showed that the paternal grandmother’s home was suitable for one child
and that she was a loving, nurturing person. However, despite respondent’s two prior child
abuse convictions and episodes of domestic violence, the paternal grandmother denied his
capacity for abusive behavior. Respondent was incarcerated for home invasion, with an earliest
release date in April 2010, and the paternal grandmother indicated she would allow respondent to
-1-
reside with her following his release. The evidence also showed the paternal grandmother had
not contacted, visited, or sought custody of the minor child during the three years the child had
suffered her parents’ abuse and neglect, or when respondent became incarcerated in 2005. In
addition, the trial court noted that the paternal grandmother was offered the opportunity for an
extended visit with the child to acclimate the child to her home in Illinois, but she did not avail
herself of that opportunity.
The minor child was progressing physically, emotionally, and educationally in foster
care, but she would not enjoy a permanent home with the foster family because they did not
desire to adopt her. Placement with the paternal grandmother would also not offer permanence
because respondent nominated his mother for the child’s custody only while he was incarcerated,
after which the child would be exposed once again to his abusive and neglectful behavior.
Although permanence was not imminent for the minor child, the trial court did not err in
determining upon all evidence presented that termination of respondent’s parental rights to allow
the prospect of permanent adoption in a safe home was not clearly contrary to the minor child’s
best interests.
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.
