IN RE MASON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JADEN C. MASON and
CAMERON A. MASON, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
September 15, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 290637
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC Nos. 2007-000409-NA
2007-000410-NA
RICHARD MASON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CLARISSA SMITH,
Respondent.
Before: M. J. Kelly, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Shapiro, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Richard Mason appeals as of right the circuit court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (h), and (j). Because we
conclude that there were no errors warranting relief, we affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(g), (h), and (j) were each
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(G)(3); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent was serving a jail sentence at the time the children
came into care. He was later sentenced to prison for three to ten years and his maximum
discharge date is not until July 2016. While it was possible that respondent could be paroled as
early as July 2009, there was no evidence that he was likely to be paroled at that time. Even if he
were paroled, the evidence showed that it would take at least six months to demonstrate an
ability to maintain a stable lifestyle. Because termination was appropriate under §§ 19b(3)(g),
(h), and (j), any error in relying on § 19b(3)(c)(i) as an additional basis for termination was
harmless. In re Powers, 244 Mich App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472 (2000).
Respondent’s claim that the trial court erred in failing to hold a separate “best interests”
hearing is without merit. In child protective proceedings, the court must hold an adjudicatory
-1-
hearing to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the child. If it has jurisdiction, it must then
hold a dispositional hearing to determine what measures to take with respect to the child. In re
AMAC, 269 Mich App 533, 536-537; 711 NW2d 426 (2006). A dispositional hearing is required
even when termination is sought in an original petition.1 Id. at 538. Where, as here, termination
is requested pursuant to a supplemental petition filed after the initial dispositional hearing, the
court need only conduct a single hearing at which both the statutory grounds for termination and
the child’s best interests are considered. MCR 3.977(G)(1)(b) and (3). Therefore, respondent
was not entitled to a separate “best interests” hearing.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
1
Because the court must consider the child’s best interests in determining whether to order
termination, MCL 712A.19b(5), the initial dispositional hearing on a petition for permanent
custody is sometimes referred to as a “best interests” hearing.
-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.
