IN RE KIARA NICOLE SMITH MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ERIC S. JOHNSON and COREY
SMITH, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 26, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
LASHONDA SMITH,
No. 224633
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC Nos. 98-000069-NA
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ERIC JOHNSON,
Respondent.
In the Matter of KIARA NICOLE SMITH, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
LASHONDA SMITH,
Respondent-Appellant,
No. 224634
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-000004-NA
and
TOMMY SWIFT,
Respondent.
Before: Bandstra, C.J., and Fitzgerald and D. B. Leiber*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children 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 record reveals that before the children entered care, respondent-appellant had left
them with a relative for months at a time and was unable to be located. She also had no housing,
employment, or financial assistance. After they were in foster care, she failed to visit them for
months at a time and she has discontinued participation in any services since July of 1999.
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; In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the evidence did not establish that termination of
respondent-appellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407
(2000).
We reject respondent-appellant’s claim that she was denied the effective assistance of
counsel. Although respondent-appellant contends that counsel was ineffective because funds
were not provided in order to obtain the necessary experts to refute petitioner’s experts, she does
not indicate who could have called as a witness, what their proposed testimony would have
established, or how any expert testimony could have reasonably affected the outcome of the case.
Thus, respondent-appellant has not established that she is entitled to relief due to ineffective
assistance of counsel. People v Ullah, 216 Mich App 669, 684-685; 550 NW2d 568 (1996); In
re Simon, 171 Mich App 443, 447; 431 NW2d 71 (1988).
Respondent-appellant also claims that the statutes governing child protective proceedings
create a conflict of interest for the FIA because the FIA has the responsibility, at various times, of
both facilitating the return of a child to the child’s parents and initiating proceedings to terminate
that parent’s parental rights.1 We find no merit to this claim. The FIA’s responsibilities are
1
See e.g., MCL 712A.18; MSA 27.3178(598.18), MCL 712A.19a; MSA 27.3178(598.19a), and
MCL 712A.19b; MSA 27.3178(598.19b).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
dependent on the circumstances of each case. While those responsibilities may differ from time
to time, depending on the circumstances, they do not create a conflict of interest.
We affirm.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Dennis B. Leiber
-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.