IN RE QUASANN LETIKIA HUMPHREY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of QUASANN LETIKIA HUMPHREY,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 27, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 223556
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No.
80-219077
SHEILA MARIE HUMPHREY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
HENRY MANCE WARREN, JR.,
Respondent.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Cavanagh and Gage, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from an order terminating her parental rights to the
minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (g) and (j).
We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent maintains that judicial bias of the referee violated her right to due process. At a
minimum, in order to preserve an issue of alleged judicial bias based on judicial conduct, the party
claiming bias must object to the trial court’s conduct during trial or otherwise raise the issue below. Illes
v Jones Transfer Co, 213 Mich App 44, 56 n2, 60; 539 NW2d 382 (1995); Meagher v Wayne
State University, 222 Mich App 700, 725; 565 NW2d 401 (1997). Respondent-appellant never
objected to the manner or extent of the referee’s questioning of witnesses, or the conduct of the referee
in general. Therefore, respondent-appellant has not preserved her claim of judicial bias.
-1
Moreover, the record does not support respondent-appellant’s claim. A party challenging a
judge for bias must overcome a heavy presumption of judicial impartiality. Cain v Dep't of
Corrections, 451 Mich 470, 495; 548 NW2d 210 (1996). Although favorable or unfavorable
predisposition that occurs as a result of facts or events occurring in the trial proceeding may deserve to
be characterized as "bias" or "prejudice,” these opinions will not constitute a basis for disqualification
"unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible."
Cain, supra at 496, citing Liteky v United States, 510 US 540, 551; 114 S Ct 1147, 1155; 127 L
Ed 2d 474 (1994). In the instant case, respondent-appellant has not presented any evidence or
identified any specific examples of conduct by the trial court that would rise to this level.
Finally, 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(I); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 355
356; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
