IN RE AVERITTE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MELISSA AVERITTE and TYRA
AVERITTE, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 25, 1997
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
OLIVER CLAYTON,
No. 200356
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 94-321092
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LATASHA AVERITTE,
Respondent.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
LATASHA AVERITTE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
OLIVER CLAYTON,
Respondent.
No. 200560
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 94-321092
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Young, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In No. 200356, respondent Clayton appeals as of right from the juvenile court order terminating
his parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii). In No. 200560, respondent Averitte appeals by leave granted from the
juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g)
and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) and (j).1 Respondents’ appeals have been consolidated for our
review. We affirm.
In No. 200356, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent Clayton’s parental rights
despite his claim that the only evidence presented was hearsay from petitioner’s reports with no
demonstration that the author of the reports was unavailable as required by MCR 5.974(F)(2). Any
error was harmless given that respondent failed to show any prejudice. See In re Ernst, 130 Mich
App 657, 661; 344 NW2d 39 (1983), citing Moskalik v Dunn, 392 Mich 583, 588; 221 NW2d 313
(1974). Respondent does not contest the validity of the record which reveals that he deserted his
daughters for ninety-one or more days.
See MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii). Moreover, respondent was not denied due process where there was no
indication that the hearsay testimony was other than fair, reliable and trustworthy. In re Ovalle, 140
Mich App 79, 82; 363 NW2d (1985). Respondent does not allege that the author of the reports
would have testified contrary to her own notes and state that respondent did visit his children more
often. Finally, any due process error was harmless where respondent does not deny that he deserted
his children for ninety-one days or more. MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii);
People v Cunningham, 215 Mich App 615, 657; 546 NW2d 715 (1996).
In No. 200560, the juvenile court did not err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472; 564 NW2d 156 (1997).
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
1
Although respondent Averitte also claims that the court erred in terminating her parental rights under
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), the record does not reflect that this
subsection was a basis for terminating her parental rights.
-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.
