IN RE MASSEY/ALEXANDER/BARNES MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MAURICE CORTEZ MASSEY,
VINCENT NICHOLAS ALEXANDER, JR.,
TANEISHA ANTOINETTE EHPIA BARNES, and
ANTONIO LEE BARNES, JR., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 23, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 226291
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-357854
MAUREEN MASSEY,
Respondent,
and
ANTONIO LEE BARNES, a/k/a MARIO
SIMMONS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
VINCENT NICHOLAS ALEXANDER PEOPLES,
a/k/a VINCENT ALEXANDER and VINCENT
PEOPLES, and JAMES EDDIE BLAKE,
Respondents.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant Antonio Lee Barnes appeals as of right from a January 18, 2000,
order of the family court terminating his parental rights to his three children: Maurice Cortez
-1-
Massey, Taneisha Antoinette Ehpia Barnes, and Antonio Lee Barnes, Jr., pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (h), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), (h), and (j).1 We affirm.
Respondent-appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the family court clearly erred in
terminating his parental rights to his three children because the statutory bases were not
supported by clear and convincing evidence. Although only one statutory basis must be proven
by clear and convincing evidence to warrant termination, MCL 712A.19b(3); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3), we find that all four statutory bases were established by clear and
convincing evidence. From the time of the initial filing of the petition on August 5, 1997, until
the final order terminating parental rights on January 18, 2000, respondent-appellant was
incarcerated for a conviction of armed robbery. Other than sending the children one letter, he
had no contact with the children, nor did he have contact with any of the foster care workers.
Although he was present at the court hearings by speaker telephone, was working toward a GED,
had attended drug therapy and impulse control programs, he had not attended any parenting
programs and was uncertain of employment and living arrangements after his release from
prison, which he anticipated would be by October 2000. There was no other indication that
respondent-appellant would be able to provide care and custody for the children after his release
from prison, and he had not done so during his incarceration.
Consequently, we find that the family court’s findings and decision to terminate parental
rights are not clearly erroneous. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-257; 612 NW2d 407
(2000). Further, we find that there is not clear evidence on the whole record that termination is
clearly not in the children’s best interests.
Id., p 354; MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5).
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
1
We note that respondent-appellant is not the father of Vincent Nicholas Alexander, Jr. His
parents are Maureen Massey and Vincent Nicholas Alexander Peoples, neither of whom are
parties to this appeal. James Eddie Blake is the purported father of a fifth child of Ms. Massey’s,
who tragically died during the pendency of these proceedings.
-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.
