IN RE KENNETH DANELL CANNON JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of Kenneth Danell Cannon, Jr., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 30, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 220555
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-373619
LAWANDA SMITH,
Respondent,
and
KENNETH DANELL CANNON, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Kenneth Cannon, Sr. appeals as of right the order terminating his parental rights.
We affirm.
A petition for permanent custody was filed after respondent Lawanda Smith left the child in the
care of a friend without making arrangements for support while she served a jail term. Respondent
Cannon has been continually incarcerated since shortly after the child’s birth. After a hearing, the
referee found that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights under MCL
712A.19(b)(3)(g), (h) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g), (h) and (j), for failure to provide proper
care, imprisonment, and a reasonable likelihood that the child would be harmed if returned to the parent.
The referee found that it would be in the child’s best interests to terminate parental rights.
-1
On appeal from termination of parental rights proceedings, this Court reviews the family court’s
decision under the clearly erroneous standard. In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d
520 (1999). If permanent termination of parental rights is sought, the petitioner bears the burden of
showing a statutory basis for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re Hamlet (After
Remand), 225 Mich App 505, 522; 571 NW2d 750 (1997). Once a statutory ground for termination
of parental rights is established, the court must terminate parental rights unless it finds that termination of
the child’s parental rights is clearly not in the child’s best interest. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5), In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). The
burden of going forward with evidence that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests rests
with the respondent. Id., 473.
There was clear and convincing evidence presented to support termination under each of the
statutory sections. Respondent has been incarcerated for nearly his child’s entire life. There is no
evidence that he provided proper care and custody for his child. He made no arrangements for the
child’s care. It is likely that the child would be harmed if returned to the home of the parent.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/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.
