IN RE WESTON DALE SHERWOOD MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KEEONA SHAYAME
HOUSEMAN, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 2, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 260246
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-054841-NA
JEREMY SHERWOOD,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of WESTON DALE SHERWOOD,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 260247
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-054839-NA
JEREMY SHERWOOD,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Gage and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent appeals as of right from two orders terminating
his parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) (desertion), (c)(i)
(conditions leading to adjudication continue to exist), (c)(ii) (other conditions exist), and (g)
(failure to provide proper care and custody). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without
oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
-1-
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re JK, 468 Mich 202,
209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). The evidence, including respondent’s own testimony,
demonstrated that respondent failed to visit or even contact the children for several months
before the termination trial. Despite respondent having been given several opportunities to take
advantage of visitation, he failed to do so. Therefore, the evidence demonstrated that respondent
deserted his minor children. Furthermore, respondent also failed to actively participate in the
parenting support group he was required to attend and, therefore, failed to address the major
issue leading to adjudication – domestic violence. Respondent also testified regarding his
sporadic employment and housing situations. These “other conditions” were properly considered
in terminating respondent’s parental rights. Thus, the evidence demonstrated that respondent
was not in a position to provide the children with proper care or custody and that the conditions
leading to adjudication, as well as other conditions, continued to exist. Therefore, the trial court
did not clearly err by finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear
and convincing evidence.
Additionally, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the evidence failed to show
that termination of respondent’s parental rights was not in the children’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent failed to
see the children for a number of months and there was evidence that the children did not ask
about respondent. Respondent failed to participate in the proceedings in any meaningful way.
Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
