IN RE YOUNG/WILLIAMS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________________
In the Matter of EBONY YOUNG, LARNELL
YOUNG, ALEXIS YOUNG, DEONTAY O’DAY
YOUNG, and TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 24, 1997
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 194552
Wayne Probate Court
LC No. 93-311-319
ADELLA YOUNG,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHANCY ROBY, LARNELL O’DAY, and
TIMOTHY WILLIAMS,
Respondents.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Hood and McDonald, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the probate court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
The probate court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445
NW2d 161 (1989). Further, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of her parental rights
was clearly not in the children’s best interest. In re Hall-Smith, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___
(Docket No. 195833, issued 3/25/97), slip op p 3. Thus, the probate court did not err in terminating
-1
respondent-appellant’s
27.3178(598.19b)(5).
parental
rights
to
the
children.
MCL
712A.19b(5);
MSA
Respondent also contends that she was denied her liberty interest in her children without due
process. We disagree. Although parents have a significant interest in the companionship care, custody
and management of their children which has been characterized as an element of "liberty" to be
protected by due process, In re Block, 442 Mich 101, 109; 449 NW2d 752 (1993), based on our
conclusion above, and the efforts made to reunite respondent with her children, we see no violation of
respondent's due process rights.
Respondent also asserts that she was denied effective assistance of counsel, because her trial
counsel refused to let her testify at the permanent custody trial despite her requests and that her counsel
refused to call a witness who would have testified regarding respondent's efforts to enroll in classes and
counseling. Even if respondent's claims are true, the absence of testimony from respondent and the
other witness' testimony would not have changed the outcome of the proceedings. Respondent was not
denied the effective assistance of counsel.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
-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.
