IN RE ERROL MARTIN III MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ERROL MARTIN III, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
April 20, 2010
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 292608
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-475649
MARQUISHA JANIECE PROFIT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ERROL LOUIS MARTIN, JR.,
Respondent.
In the Matter of ERROL MARTIN III, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 292816
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-475649
ERROL LOUIS MARTIN, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARQUISHA JANIECE PROFIT,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: DAVIS, P.J., and FORT HOOD and SERVITTO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent mother appeals as of right from an order
terminating her parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (g), and (j);
and respondent father appeals as of right from the same order terminating his parental rights
under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (j), (k)(vi), and (n). We affirm as to both parents.
The minor child, Errol (d/o/b 8/11/07), was the biological child of both parents.
Respondent mother had another son, Jaeshawn (d/o/b 9/19/06), who died as a result of severe
abuse inflicted while respondent mother left both children in respondent father’s care.1
Respondent father was eventually convicted of first-degree child abuse and felony murder of
Jaeshawn. Prior to the death, respondents had a relationship involving considerable domestic
violence, most of which was directed against respondent mother. On at least one occasion, the
police were summoned, and they reported observing broken furniture and marks on respondent
mother’s neck. The evidence consistently showed that respondent father had nevertheless
appeared to be a good caregiver for the children. And other than one incident of losing his
temper and throwing a television, he was otherwise a fairly passive person; the parents simply set
each other off. Jaeshawn had been injured at least once previously while in respondent father’s
care, leading respondent mother and treating physicians at the ER to suspect abuse, but doctors
either concluded that abuse had not occurred or found other reasons for apparent injuries.
Respondent father argues that the trial court clearly erred in finding that the statutory
bases for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence because his conviction
for child abuse and felony murder should not have been considered where the conviction was
under appeal.2 Respondent father cited no authority in support of his theory and, therefore, has
abandoned the issue on appeal. Peterson Novelties, Inc v City of Berkley, 259 Mich App 1, 14;
672 NW2d 351 (2003). The conviction notwithstanding, we find that petitioner established at
least one statutory basis for termination by clear and convincing evidence, based on the medical
examiner’s testimony and respondent father’s statement to police. MCL 712A.19b(3). We also
find that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent father’s
parental rights was in Errol’s best interest, and so we affirm the trial court’s order terminating
respondent father’s parental rights.
While there was some evidence that respondent mother was active in her children’s lives,
there was also considerable evidence that she did not act as an adequate caretaker of them.
Testimony and medical notes indicate that Jaeshawn was not up to date on his immunizations for
some considerable time, Errol had a rash that some testimony indicated got worse whenever he
was with his mother, there was evidence of improper discipline and general concern that
respondent mother was simply not capable of parenting in any realistic manner. Most
1
We spend much of this opinion discussing Jaeshawn because Errol’s termination was largely
based on what happened to Jaeshawn. This case was decided on June 11, 2009, when Errol was
not yet aged two.
2
That appeal is pending in this Court in Docket No. 293703.
-2-
disturbingly, despite the violence respondent father directed toward her and her own belief that
respondent father was likely to harm the children, she largely left both children to be cared for by
respondent father. Leaving her children in the care of someone who she believed3 was likely to,
or was capable of, hurting her children is compatible with a finding of abandonment and neglect.
We are persuaded that the trial court did not clearly err in finding MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), failure
to provide proper care and custody, established.
MCL 712A.19b(5) provides, “If the court finds that there are grounds for termination of
parental rights and that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests, the court
shall order termination of parental rights and order that additional efforts for reunification of the
child with the parent not be made.” Because termination is required if even one ground is
established, provided the trial court finds doing so to be in the child’s best interests, we need not
consider the alternative bases for termination. The court in this case found termination of the
mother’s rights to also be in the child’s best interests and we find no error in that determination.
Affirmed.
/s/ Alton T. Davis
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
3
We recognize that there was considerable testimony to the effect that respondent father
appeared to some witnesses to have been a good father up to the time of Jaeshawn’s death, but
we are concerned here with what respondent mother believed, not what others believed or what
medical personnel could or could not find evidence of.
-3-
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.
