IN RE SMITH MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LA DIAMOND L. SMITH and
DEMARCO SMITH, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 10, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 263747
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-422673-NA
LLOYD A. DIXON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DARLENE D. SMITH,
Respondent.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Smolenski and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from an order terminating his parental rights to
his minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3(c)(ii), (g), and (j). We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds had been
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633;
593 NW2d 520 (1999). The circumstances that brought the minor children under the court’s
jurisdiction included their mother’s drug use during pregnancy and respondent-appellant’s failure
to protect his children. Following adjudication, respondent-appellant admitted to also having a
substance abuse problem. By the time of the termination trial, he had not substantially complied
with the terms of his treatment plan and had not overcome his own substance abuse problem or
maintained stable housing and income. Respondent-appellant admitted that he had been
“experimenting” with cocaine over the last three years and that he needed assistance overcoming
his substance abuse activities before he could parent the minor children. He did not have a job
and did not have a place to live as a result of these activities. He acknowledged that he could not
take care of the two young children at that time. Respondent-appellant had been focusing on his
-1-
recovery and did not visit with the minor children or stay in contact with his caseworker.
Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that statutory grounds for termination of his
parental rights had been established.
Furthermore, the evidence did not show that the children’s best interests precluded
termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights. MCL 712A.19b(5). While there was some
testimony that respondent-appellant was appropriate when he did visit the children and that some
bonding did exist, respondent-appellant had not visited the minor children for four months at the
time of the conclusion of the termination trial. He admitted that he needed to focus on his
recovery and could not care for the minor children at that time. Whether or when respondentappellant would stop using cocaine was not certain. Therefore, the trial court properly found that
the minor children needed an opportunity for stability and permanence in their life.
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.
