IN RE HOWARD MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TONYA LENN HOWARD, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 22, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 206412
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 89-278215
PHELICIA ANN KNIPP,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JERRY HOWARD,
Respondent.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Griffin and O'Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent-appellant’s request for a
continuance. In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 28; 501 NW2d 182 (1993); In re King, 186 Mich
App 458, 466; 465 NW2d 1 (1990).
Next, respondent-appellant has not established that she was denied the effective assistance of
counsel. Decisions concerning which witnesses to call, what evidence to present, and the questioning of
witnesses all involve matters of trial strategy. Respondent-appellant has not overcome the presumption
of sound trial strategy, nor has she shown that she was deprived of a substantial defense. People v
-1
Bass, 223 Mich App 241, 252-253; 565 NW2d 897 (1997); People v Barclay, 208 Mich App 670,
672; 528 NW2d 842 (1995).
Finally, respondent-appellant does not challenge the juvenile court’s determination that the
statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In
re Miller, 443 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Because respondent-appellant failed to show
that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests, 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich A 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997), the
pp
juvenile court did not err in terminating her parental rights to the child. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Peter D. O'Connell
-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.