IN RE SOLOMON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ISSAC SOLOMON, a/k/a ISSAC
BARBER, and IVORY SOLOMON, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 21, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
EBONY LATOYA SOLOMON, a/k/a EBONY
BARBER,
No. 267588
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-442516-NA
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Meter and Donofrio, JJ.
METER, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority concerning the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the
children. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority with respect to the termination of
respondent’s parental rights. I would affirm the termination of parental rights.
Respondent sometimes allowed her infant son Issac to stay with his then-putative father,
sixteen-year-old Rodney Barber, for weekend visits. Respondent knew that Barber was living
with another individual, referred to as “DeLawn,” who disliked respondent and had threatened to
harm her severely; respondent indicated that she did not trust DeLawn to care for Issac and had
told Barber as much. During one of the weekend visits between Issac and Barber, respondent
saw Issac with “deep” scratches on his face that Barber could not explain and that, according to
respondent, did not come from the infant himself. Additionally, Barber told respondent that he
had entrusted Issac to DeLawn’s care for a period of time during the visit. Despite these
circumstances, respondent left Issac in Barber’s care. This evidence demonstrated a lack of good
judgment on the part of respondent that was likely to result in harm to her children. Therefore, I
cannot conclude that the trial court clearly erred in finding a statutory basis for terminating
respondent’s parental rights. Moreover, the evidence did not demonstrate that terminating
parental rights was clearly contrary to the best interests of the children.
I would affirm.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-1-
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.
