IN RE FRANKLIN AND WILLIAMS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________________
In the Matter of DEON FRANKLIN, SANTORIA
WILLIAMS, DAMON WILLIAMS, and LAMONT
WILLIAMS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 12, 1997
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 202756
Saginaw Juvenile Court
LC No. 94-023059 NA
JANICE DENISE WILLIAMS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
WILLIE CHARLES FRANKLIN,
Respondent.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 202901
Saginaw Juvenile Court
LC No. 94-023059 NA
WILLIE CHARLES FRANKLIN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JANICE DENISE WILLIAMS,
-1
Respondent.
Before: MacKenzie, P.J., and Hood and Hoekstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from the juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to
the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(ii), (g),
and (j). This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). We affirm.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that 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, the court did not commit clear error in ruling that respondents had failed
to show that termination of their parental rights was not in the best interests of the children. In re HallSmith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997); see also MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5); MCR 5.974(E)(2). That standard does not unconstitutionally shift the burden of
proof onto respondents. In re Hall-Smith, supra at 472-473; see also In re Hamlet, ___ Mich App
___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 198096, issued 9/26/97), slip op at 8.
Although both parents argued in the trial court that they had not been provided appropriate
assistance by the agency, the applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act was not raised or
decided below and is therefore unpreserved for appellate review. See 42 USC § 12133; see also 29
USC § 794a; 42 USC §§ 2000e-5(f)-2000e-5(k).
Affirmed.
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-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.
