IN RE AMANDA CHARALLE HOWARD MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AMANDA CHARALLE
HOWARD, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 18, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 285007
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-696434-NA
KEITH KELLY HOWARD,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Jansen and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding termination of
respondent father’s parental rights was not clearly contrary to the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The minor child was
11 years old when this child protective proceeding commenced and 15 years old when the trial
court terminated respondent’s parental rights. During that time, she had four placements.
Respondent was incarcerated for the first three years of the proceeding, and the evidence
clearly showed he failed to engage in court-ordered services or cooperate with the agency during
the year after his release. He tested positive for cocaine, lied about his employment, failed to
submit drug screens in order to gain visits with the minor child, and was chronically untruthful
with the trial court, the agency, his parole officer, and his employer. Most importantly for the
purpose of best interests consideration, he was untruthful to the minor child and told her he was
doing everything in his power to facilitate her return home.
The evidence supported respondent’s argument on appeal that the child was strongly
bonded to him, would suffer emotional distress if his parental rights were terminated, was in
residential placement, was of an age to refuse adoption, and might seek him out once she reached
the age of majority. It was unlikely that the minor child would be adopted. However, the
evidence did not support respondent’s contention that termination would deprive the minor child
-1-
of beneficial contact with him. Testimony presented at various stages of the proceeding by two
of the child’s therapists, two caseworkers, the doctor who conducted respondent’s and the child’s
psychological evaluations, and a CASA volunteer who had contact with the child five days a
week, clearly showed continued contact with respondent was detrimental to the child.
Respondent’s chronic lying and failure to comply with services in order to gain visits and
achieve reunification caused the minor child anger, confusion, and panic attacks. Although the
child would benefit from anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medication, respondent refused it. The
evidence also showed respondent had significant psychological issues that remained
unaddressed. Return to respondent’s care was not a viable option within a reasonable time.
By the time of the best interests hearing, the evidence showed the minor child accepted
the likelihood of termination, began the grieving process in counseling, stabilized without
medication after contact with respondent ceased, and expressed to her therapist subconscious
support for termination of respondent’s parental rights. The evidence did not show foster
placement during the next three years was impossible.
A best interests determination is based on evidence presented by any party and on the
entire record. Trejo, supra at 353. In this case, the evidence contained in the lengthy record
supported the trial court’s finding that the child’s need for stability, permanency, and separation
from respondent for the duration of her minority outweighed the emotional distress she would
experience and address in counseling due to severance of the parent-child bond.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
