IN RE TILLMAN MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS __________________________________________ In the Matter of TASHANA TILLMAN, SHANDELL TILLMAN, and SHARMARRI TILLMAN, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED February 27, 1998 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 202707 Kent Juvenile Court LC No. 94-061000-NA REGINA TILLMAN, Respondent-Appellant, and WILLIAM DUKES, Respondent. Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Fitzgerald and M.G. Harrison*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm. Where at least one of the statutory grounds for termination is met by clear and convincing evidence, the juvenile court may terminate parental rights. In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1993). This Court reviews the juvenile court’s findings of fact for clear error. In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). We find that the juvenile court erred in determining that the conditions leading to adjudication continued to exist at the time of the termination proceeding. There was no evidence that respondent-appellant was continuing to use or deal drugs. In addition, she had moved to more appropriate housing and had not been in trouble with the law after being released on parole. Thus, termination under subsection (3)(c)(i) was inappropriate. However, the juvenile court did not err in finding that the statutory ground for termination as articulated in subsection (3)(g) was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, supra. There was ample evidence of respondent-appellant’s inability to provide proper care and custody and the evidence demonstrated that she would be unable to do so within a reasonable time. Affirmed. /s/ Michael J. Kelly /s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald /s/ Michael G. Harrison * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ -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.