IN RE JOHN EDWIN DAWSON III
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JOHN EDWIN DAWSON III,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 18, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 285349
St. Clair Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-000160-NA
JOHN E. DAWSON II,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KIMBERLY GORDON,
Respondent.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Sawyer and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent father appeals as of right an order that terminated his parental rights to the
minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (h), and (j). Because we conclude that there
were no errors warranting relief, we affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument
under MCR 7.214(E).
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). Respondent father pleaded guilty to assault with intent to do great bodily
harm less than murder and aiding and abetting unarmed robbery, his second and third felony
convictions, and he was sentenced to five to ten years’ imprisonment. His earliest release date
was May 2010, more than two years from the date of the termination hearing. The child was left
with the mother, who had many issues of her own that prevented adequate parenting.
Respondent father did nothing to ensure the child’s safety before being incarcerated. He did not
establish a guardianship or provide financial support for the child. Even if respondent were a
good father before being sent to prison, the fact remained that he was in no position to provide
for the child for at least two years. Respondent father’s continued criminal behavior also put the
-1-
child at risk of harm. Respondent father seemed unable to comport himself outside of a prison
setting.
Having found the statutory grounds for termination established by clear and convincing
evidence, the trial court was obligated to terminate respondent father’s parental rights unless it
appeared, on the whole record, that termination was clearly contrary to the child’s best interests.
MCL 712A.19b(5);1 In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent’s
criminal actions resulted in his separation from his child, which separation would continue for a
significant period of time. The child was entitled to permanence and stability, and respondent
father was not in a position to provide either. There was no error warranting relief.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
1
We note that respondent father’s parental rights were terminated before the effective date of the
amendment of MCL 712A.19b(5). See 2008 PA 199.
-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.
