IN RE BABY GIRL BROWN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BABY GIRL BROWN, a/k/a
KEANU BROWN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 10, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 263385
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-117050-NA
CHARLES E. THOMAS, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ARNETTA BROWN,
Respondent.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Smolenski and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(ii), (h), and (j). We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
In September 2003, petitioner filed a petition seeking temporary custody of Keanu and
her four half-siblings, alleging that the children’s mother had failed to properly care for the
children. The children’s mother admitted to the allegations in the petition, and the court took
jurisdiction over the children. Respondent-appellant was incarcerated at the time, having been
sentenced on June 13, 2001, when Keanu was three years old, to five to ten years on charges of
armed robbery. His earliest release date was September 19, 2005, and his latest release date was
September 19, 2010. He admitted that he had served a 3½-year sentence in 1992 for assault with
intent to do great bodily harm and felony-firearm.
Respondent-appellant had last seen Keanu right after he was sentenced in 2001. He had
not provided any financial support for the child since his incarceration. The caseworker conceded
-1-
that respondent-appellant loved Keanu and expressed concern over her well-being but found that,
while Keanu cared about respondent-appellant as her father, there was only a loose bond
between the two wherein Keanu enjoyed receiving letters from him and acknowledged him as
her father. Petitioner filed a permanent custody petition in March 2005, and the termination trial
was held in June 2005. The trial court concluded that the evidence supported termination of
respondent-appellant’s parental rights under §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(ii), (h), and (j).
The trial court did not clearly err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights
under each of the cited statutory grounds where the evidence showed that respondent-appellant
had been incarcerated since Keanu was three years old, that he was incarcerated at the time of
trial and could remain incarcerated for an additional five years after the termination trial, that he
had not supported Keanu financially while he was incarcerated and not been in contact with her
until the instant proceedings had commenced, and that he had a criminal history. MCR
3.977(G)(3); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, this evidence did
not establish that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the
child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407
(2000). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to
the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
