IN RE JOSIAH BRADSHAW MAYNE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JOSIAH BRADSHAW MAYNE,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
February 24, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 287025
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-440937
LUCHONA JANETTE HOWARD, a/k/a
LUCHONA JANETTE PIERCE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and O’Connell and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the order of the trial court terminating her parental rights
to her minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. This appeal has
been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds for termination
had been established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Fried, 266 Mich App 535, 540541; 702 NW2d 192 (2005); MCR 3.977(J). The record supports termination of respondent’s
parental rights under subsection (3)(c)(i), given that, although almost three years had passed,
respondent was in no better position to assume custody of the child at the time of termination
than she had been at the time of adjudication. Rather, having been deported during the
proceedings, respondent was unable to return to this country to care for the child and had lost her
housing and source of income. The record also supports termination of respondent’s parental
rights under subsections (3)(g) and (3)(j), because there was a strong indication that the child
would not be safe in respondent’s care. Notably, two of respondent’s other children had died
while in her care, respondent had been convicted in Canada of criminal negligence regarding the
death of one of those children, and Canadian authorities had removed three other children from
her care. We further find no error in the trial court’s finding that termination was in the best
interests of the child, considering respondent’s poor record of parenting. MCL 712A.19b(5).
We also reject respondent’s argument that the trial court, upon rehearing, should have
granted the motion to deport the child to Canada. We are unconvinced that the trial court had
-1-
authority to grant such a motion, and respondent presents no support for her position that the trial
court should have taken this action even if such authority existed.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/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.
