IN RE CORNESSA WILLIAMS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CORNESSA WILLIAMS, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 27, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 229969
Berrien Circuit Court
Juvenile Division
LC No. 00-000132-NA
SHANEKA WASHINGTON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LECOY WILLIAMS,
Respondent.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Jansen and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant, Shaneka Washington, appeals as of right from an order
terminating her parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
455 NW2d 161 (1989). The evidence indicated that during the adjudication, fourteen-year-old
respondent-appellant made threats of physical violence against the child and others. Respondentappellant has a history of drug use and criminal behavior and did not cooperate with many
services that were offered. While it appears that respondent-appellant’s recent behavior at a
treatment facility has been acceptable, testimony suggested she would not be ready for release
from that facility for at least fourteen months and would require years to resolve her own
significant psychological problems. These circumstances suggest that respondent-appellant
would be unable to provide proper care for the child within a reasonable time and the child
would be harmed if returned to respondent-appellant’s custody. Furthermore, there is not clear
-1-
evidence, on the whole record, that termination was not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354, 364-365; 612 NW2d
407 (2000). Accordingly, the juvenile court did not clearly err in terminating respondentappellant’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
