IN RE STACY M S S FOX MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
______________________________________
In re STACEY M.S.S. FOX, JOHN MICHAEL
SCOTT FOX, DAVID KEYWANA JOSEPH
FOX, and SARAH SHAWKNEE FOX, Minors
_______________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 24, 1997
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 187189
Oakland Juvenile Court
LC No. 92-054777-NA
NANCY FOX,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOHNNY MCFARLAND, AL HUGHES and
RONALD HARGE,
Respondents.
_______________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 187279
Oakland Juvenile Court
LC No. 92-054777-NA
JOHNNY MCFARLAND,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
NANCY FOX,
Respondent.
-1
_______________________________________
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., Hood and P. J. Sullivan,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents Fox and McFarland filed separate appeals as of right from the probate court
order of May 9, 1995, terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (3)(g). The appeals were
consolidated for our review. We affirm.
Notwithstanding evidence of possible Indian heritage, the record is devoid of any evidence that
any of the children or respondent Fox or respondent McFarland is a member of an Indian tribe. Absent
such evidence, the probate court was not required to apply the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 USC
1901 et seq., or MCR 5.980. See In re AG, 899 P2d 319, 322 (Colo App, 1995); In re Adoption
of Baby Boy W, 831 P2d 643 (Okla, 1992); see also In re Shawboose, 175 Mich App 637, 640; 438
NW2d 272 (1989).
Although the probate court initially referred to the best interests of the children, the probate
court’s subsequent statements confirm that it found that the statutory grounds for termination had been
proven by clear and convincing evidence, thus indicating that the proper legal standard was used.
Although the trial court's summary conclusions arguably fall short of the requirements of MCR
5.974(G)(1), the evidence supporting termination was overwhelming. The probate court did not clearly
err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination had been established by clear and convincing
evidence with respect to both respondents. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445
NW2d 161 (1989). Additionally, the probate court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that termination
was in the best interests of the children. In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 25; 501 NW2d 182
(1993); In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991).
We reject respondent McFarland’s claim that he was improperly denied visitation, given that
visitation need not be scheduled where it would be harmful to the children, MCL 712A.18f(3)(e); MSA
27.3178(598.18f)(3)(e), that he was incarcerated in prison during the period in question, and that he
never sought to compel visitation in an appropriate motion in the probate court. Also, the probate court
did not abuse its discretion in ordering respondent McFarland’s son to remain in foster care placement
prior to the filing of the petition requesting termination. In re Martin, 167 Mich App 715, 727; 423
NW2d 327 (1988). Finally, there is no record support for respondent McFarland’s claim that he was
discriminated against because he was an unwed father, or that the probate court “hurried the termination
proceedings” without affording him an adequate opportunity to reestablish himself.
Affirmed.
*
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-2
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Paul J. Sullivan
-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.