IN RE MELVIN AND TANE WILLIAMS; MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MELVIN D. WILLIAMS and TANE’
J. WILLIAMS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 3, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 214691
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-323033 NA
MARDIA KIRSTEN WILLIAMS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MELVIN JEWELL and JAMIR ANDERSON,
Respondents.
Before: White, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by delayed leave granted a family court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), and (g); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), and (g). We affirm.
Respondent-appellant’s sole issue on appeal refers only to § 19b(3)(c)(i). Further, respondent
appellant does not direct her argument at the statutory elements of this subsection, but rather, argues
only that petitioner’s efforts to reunite the family were deficient. Because respondent-appellant does not
challenge the trial court’s decision that termination of her parental rights was warranted under
§§ 19b(3)(a)(ii) and (g), and does not address the basis for the trial court’s decision to terminate under
§ 19b(3)(c)(i), appellate relief is not warranted with regard to whether a statutory ground for termination
was established by clear and convincing evidence. See In re JS and SM, 231 Mich App 92, 98-99;
-1
585 NW2d 326 (1998). In any event, contrary to what respondent-appellant argues, the record
indicates that petitioner made a reasonable effort to reunite respondent-appellant with her children.
Finally, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the
children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich
App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children. Id.
We affirm.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
