IN RE SMITH MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TREZ TYRON SMITH,
LORRAINE SMITH, ANDREW SMITH, and
TONIEYA SMITH, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 13, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 265832
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 87-260927-NA
ANTHONY TYRONE SMITH,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Markey and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals by right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights
under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Respondent correctly characterizes the issue as one of credibility. If Lorraine’s
allegations of sexual abuse by respondent are believed, there is no question that petitioner has
established sections (b)(i), (g), and (j) and that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
not precluded by the children’s best interests. Lorraine testified that respondent put his penis
inside of her 10 to 20 times, that he wore a condom each time, and that he continued after she
told him it hurt. She provided details of the abuse and explained that she was scared to tell
anyone because respondent told her that they would both get in trouble if she did. Respondent
admitted that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia at the age of 17 and that he had not taken any
medication or sought any treatment for this condition since 2000. He denied the allegations and
explained that Lorraine had previously been sexually abused and had made other allegations of
sexual abuse by others at least four years before this allegation.
Based on the above facts and this court’s deference to the trial court’s special opportunity
to judge the credibility of witnesses, we conclude the trial court did not clearly err in finding that
-1-
the statutory grounds for termination had been established by clear and convincing evidence and
in terminating respondent ’s parental rights. MCR 2.613(C); MCR 3.977(J).
We affirm.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
