IN RE SKYRA SHERROD MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SKYRA SHERROD, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
October 21, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 285005
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-050869-NA
ANITA SHERROD,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
WILLIAM EVERETT DOW,
Respondent.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Sawyer and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Anita Sherrod appeals as of right following an order that terminated her
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
The trial court did not err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). The court also did not err in its determination regarding the child’s best
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407
(2000).
Respondent contends on appeal that there was a “rush to judgment” regarding her
parenting skills. She maintains that she would have been able to provide Skyra with proper care
and custody within a reasonable amount of time had the agency done more to provide her with
services tailored to meet her mental health challenges and intellectual limitations. However, it is
clear from the record that respondent, in fact, received special services that went above and
beyond those services generally offered to other parents. Respondent was given 15 months to
demonstrate that she could provide adequate parenting to the minor child. She received threefold the amount of parenting time offered to other parents. This was the agency’s way of
attempting to provide intense hands-on training to respondent to develop basic parenting skills.
-1-
Unfortunately, even after repetitive instruction, it was clear that respondent was simply unable to
meet the child’s basic needs. She could not successfully feed, diaper, or even hold the child
without constant intervention and instruction. Respondent had difficulty in nurturing and
consoling the child, and the child often found the visits so traumatic that she would cry
uncontrollably until an aide came and held her. Witnesses who testified indicated that, although
willing, respondent simply could not provide adequate parenting. No amount of time or
additional assistance could have overcome respondent’s intellectual barriers to parenting.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
