IN RE WILLIAMS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JAMES LAMAR WILLIAMS and
BRITTANY ORA WILLIAMS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 28, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 217283
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-330138
TIMIKA GROCE,
Respondent,
and
KEITH WILLIAMS,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of JAMES LAMAR WILLIAMS and
BRITTANY ORA WILLIAMS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 217380
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-330138
TIMIKA GROCE,
Respondent-Appellant,
-1
and
KEITH WILLIAMS,
Respondent.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Meter and T. G. Hicks*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from the family court order terminating their parental rights to the
minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii),
(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Only one statutory ground is required to terminate parental rights. In re Huisman, 230 Mich
App 372, 385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998).
In Docket No. 217283, the family court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g),
and (j) were all established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich
331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent Williams does not argue that termination of his
parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. Therefore, the family court did not err in
terminating respondent Williams’ parental rights to the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997).
In Docket No. 217380, the family court did not clearly err in finding that each of the stated
statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In
re Miller, supra at 337. Further, respondent Groce 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, supra at 472-473. Thus, the family court did not err in terminating respondent
Groce’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Timothy G. Hicks
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-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.
