IN RE WILLIAMS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of D’ANGELO DECARLOS
WILLIAMS, a/k/a ANGELO WILLIAMS, and IRIN
BRIAN WILLIAMS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 11, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
YVETTE MICHELLE WILLIAMS,
No. 221348
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-373618
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ROGER CHANDLER and JOHN JAMES,
Respondents.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Hood and Saad, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (b)(i), (b)(ii), (g), (j) and (k); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (b)(i), (b)(ii), (g), (j) and (k). We affirm. This case is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The family court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the child’s out-of-court statements
about acts of physical abuse by respondent-appellant. In re Hill, 221 Mich App 683, 696; 562
NW2d 254 (1997). The nature and circumstances surrounding the statements provide adequate indicia
of trustworthiness and there was sufficient corroborative evidence of the acts described by the child
MCR 5.972(C)(2); In re Brimer, 191 Mich App 401, 405; 478 NW2d 689 (1991). However, we
believe the court did abuse its discretion in admitting the child’s out-of-court statements concerning acts
of sexual abuse, because there was no corroborative evidence of the alleged acts described by the
child. Nevertheless, any error was harmless because the evidence of physical abuse alone supports the
court’s decision to terminate respondent’s parental rights with respect to both children under
§ 19b(3)(b)(i). Further, apart from any alleged sexual abuse, the family court did not clearly err in
finding that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights with respect to Angelo was also
warranted under §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii), (g), (j) and (k), and that termination of respondent-appellant’s
parental rights with respect to Irin was also warranted under §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j). MCR 5.974; In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent-appellant does not address the issue
whether termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests, see MCL
712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5), and, therefore, we deem that issue abandoned. Cf. In re
JS & SM, 231 Mich App 92, 98; 585 NW2d 326 (1998). Thus, the family court did not err in
terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Henry William Saad
-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.
