IN RE CORNELL/ LEWIS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MLC, TJL and TJL, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 12, 2000
Petitioner -Appellee,
v
No. 221376; 221407
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 86-253016
DEBRA A. FRAZIER,
Respondent -Appellant,
and
MELVIN CORNELL,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Kelly and Sawyer, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In Docket No. 221376, respondent Debra A. Frazier appeals as of right from the family
court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (j)
and (l); MSA 27.3178(598.19b) (3) (g), (j) and (l). In Docket No. 221407, respondent Melvin
Cornell appeals as of right from the family court order terminating his parental rights to the
minor child “MLC” under MCL 712A.19b(3) (g), (j) and (l); MSA 27.3178(598.19b) (3) (g), (j)
and (l). We affirm.
The family court did not clearly err in finding that statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633;
593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent
Frazier’s history with protective services dates back to 1986. She has had her parental rights to
three other children terminated, she has a history of alcohol abuse and she has been unable to
provide a fit home for any of her children. Although respondent Frazier initially asked for the
FIA’s involvement in this case, she became unresponsive to the agency’s efforts to work with her
-1-
and demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in services. The two youngest children, twins,
were malnourished and had protruding abdomens.
Respondent Cornell has a lengthy criminal history and a history of drug use. He did not
establish paternity of the child “MLC” until after he was incarcerated. Respondent Cornell has
never provided support or had custody of the child, he remained in prison at the time of the
termination proceedings, and he had no plan for how he would care for the child if he were
released and given the opportunity.
Once one or more grounds for termination is proven, the trial court is required to order
termination of parental rights unless termination is clearly not in the best interest of the child. In
re Trejo, 462 Mich 341; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondents in this case have failed to show
that termination of their parental rights was not in the best interest of the children. MCL
712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.10b)(5); MCR 5.974(E)(2). The family court did not err in
terminating both respondent Frazier’s and respondent Cornell’s parental rights to the minor
children in this case.
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ David H. Sawyer
-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.
