IN RE JOHNSON MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of EDWARD LEON JOHNSON, EDWIN LEON JOHNSON, EDJUAN LEON JOHNSON and EDVETTA MICHELLE JOHNSON, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED December 21, 1999 Petitioner-Appellee, v TONYA MICHELLE PARKER, a/k/a TONYA MICHELL PARKER, No. 217922 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 93-311293 Respondent-Appellant, and EDWARD LEON JOHNSON, SR., Respondent. Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Whitbeck and Zahra, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent-appellant appeals by delayed leave granted from the family court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i) and (g). We affirm. Respondent-appellant was reevaluated after the permanent custody hearing and additional psychological and psychiatric reports were submitted to the family court for its consideration. In her first issue on appeal, respondent-appellant contends that the family court clearly erred and violated her -1­ right to due process by failing to hold a hearing when the reports were submitted, because she did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the psychologist or psychiatrist who prepared the reports. Parents have a significant interest in the companionship, care and management of their children that has been characterized as an element of “liberty” to be protected by due process. In re Brock, 442 Mich 101, 109; 499 NW2d 752 (1993). “Although due process often requires confrontation and cross-examination, these are not absolute requirements.” Id. Here, respondent-appellant neither requested a hearing on the additional evidence nor objected to the family court receiving and considering the reports without a hearing. Therefore, the issue was not preserved for review. In re Hildebrant, 216 Mich App 384, 389; 548 NW2d 715 (1996). While appellate courts will consider claims of constitutional error for the first time on appeal when the alleged error would have been decisive to the outcome, id., we decline to consider respondent-appellant’s unpreserved claims here. Respondent-appellant has provided no basis from which we can conclude that cross-examination of either the psychologist or the psychiatrist would change the outcome of this case. Furthermore, respondent-appellant fails to cite any authority for her claim that the family court was required to hold a hearing on the additional evidence before deciding to terminate her parental rights. A party may not merely announce a position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for the claim. In re Hamlet (After Remand), 225 Mich App 505, 521; 571 NW2d 750 (1997). Next, respondent-appellant contends that petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence to terminate her parental rights and that termination was not in the best interests of the children. A review of the record indicates that the family court did not clearly 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). Further, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the family court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children. Id. Affirmed. /s/ Michael R. Smolenski /s/ William C. Whitbeck /s/ Brian K. Zahra -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.