IN RE SHAWN JENKINS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of D.J., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 23, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235891
Mason Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000041-NA
MONICA JENKINS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID JENKINS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of H.J., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235892
Mason Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000042-NA
MONICA JENKINS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID JENKINS,
Respondent.
-1-
___________________________________________
In the Matter of S.J., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235893
Mason Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000043-NA
MONICA JENKINS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID JENKINS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of D.J., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235894
Mason Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000041-NA
DAVID JENKINS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MONICA JENKINS,
Respondent.
-2-
____________________________________________
In the Matter of H.J., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235895
Mason Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000042-NA
DAVID JENKINS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MONICA JENKINS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of S.J., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235896
Mason Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000043-NA
DAVID JENKINS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MONICA JENKINS,
Respondent.
Before: Neff, P.J., and White and Owens, JJ.
-3-
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents-appellants appeal as of right from the trial
court order terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii),
(b)(i) and (ii), (c), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that subsections 19b(3)(b)(ii), (c), (g), and (j)
were each established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to respondent mother and
that subsections 19b(3)(a)(ii), (b)(i), (c), (g), and (j) were established by clear and convincing
evidence with respect to respondent father. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445
NW2d 161 (1989). Furthermore, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents’
parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo,
462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Respondent father argues that the trial court erred in refusing to permit him to have
visitation with the minor children because respondents’ Judgment of Divorce, which was entered
in Muskegon County, suspended visitation for respondent father. Counsel for respondent father
specifically stated on the record that respondent father should have supervised visitation with the
children only after respondent father complied with the requirements of the Judgment of
Divorce. Respondent may not harbor error as an appellate parachute by objecting to something
on appeal that he or his counsel deemed proper at trial. Dresselhouse v Chrysler Corp, 177 Mich
App 470, 477; 442 NW2d 705 (1989). Moreover, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
suspending visitation because visitation would have been harmful to the children. MCR
5.965(C)(7).
In sum, the trial court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to the
children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-4-
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.
