IN RE ADAM KENNETH WASILEWSKI MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ADAM K. WASILEWSKI, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 21, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
ANTHONY JAMES WASILEWSKI,
No. 218020
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-344598
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DORENE JOYCE WASILEWSKI,
Respondent.
In the Matter of ADAM K. WASILEWSKI, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
ANTHONY JAMES WASILEWSKI,
Respondent,
and
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
No. 218178
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-344598
DORENE JOYCE WASILEWSKI,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Doctoroff and T.L. Ludington*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent James Wasilewski appeals as of right and respondent
Dorene Wasilewski appeals by delayed leave granted from the family court order terminating their
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g)
and (j). We affirm.
In Docket No. 218020, respondent James Wasilewski claims that § 19b(3)(j) was not proven
by clear and convincing evidence. However, because only one statutory ground is required to terminate
parental rights, and because respondent does not challenge the applicability of § 19b(3)(g),1 he is not
entitled to appellate relief on this issue. Roberts & Son Contracting, Inc v North Oakland
Development Corp, 163 Mich App 109, 113; 413 NW2d 744 (1987). See also In re McIntyre, 192
Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). Respondent James Wasilewski also failed to show that
termination of his parental rights was clearly not in the child’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 family court did not err in terminating respondent James Wasilewski’s parental rights to the
child. Id.
In Docket No. 218178, the family court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds
for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974; In re Miller, 433
Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent Dorene Wasilewski does not argue that
termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the child’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), nor
is any error apparent from the record with respect to this issue. Thus, the family court did not err in
terminating respondent Dorene Wasilewski’s parental rights to the child. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Thomas L. Ludington
1
We are satisfied from our review of the record that the family court did not clearly err in finding that
§ 19b(3)(g) was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974; In re Miller, 433 Mich
331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
-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.
