IN RE WILLIAM GEORGE REESE JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of WILLIAM GEORGE REESE, JR.,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 10, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 230667
Bay Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-006382-NA
JUDI SCHULZ,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
WILLIAM GEORGE REESE,
Respondent.
In the Matter of WILLIAM GEORGE REESE, JR.,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 230775
Bay Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-006382-NA
WILLIAM GEORGE REESE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JUDI SCHULTZ,
-1-
Respondent.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Murphy, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court’s order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We affirm.
Once a trial court determines that one or more grounds for termination has been
established by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court must terminate parental rights unless
“there exists clear evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the child’s best
interests.” In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review the trial
court’s findings under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. at 358. “A finding is clearly erroneous
where the reviewing court is left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been
made.” In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 25; 501 NW2d 182 (1993).
After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in
finding that the statutory grounds for termination had been established by clear and convincing
evidence with respect to both respondents. The record establishes that despite their efforts, both
respondent’s made only modest progress, failing to master even basic parenting skills. For
example, respondents evidenced an inability to comprehend the correct way to mix the child’s
formula even after repeated instruction. Further, the record shows that respondents rely heavily
on third-party caretakers for helping them meet their own basic needs. Respondents’
psychological evaluations indicate that it is “unrealistic” that either respondent “will attain the
skills necessary to adequately care for” themselves, and that it is “equally unlikely” that either
“will attain the skills necessary to adequately manage” custody of their minor son.
Additionally, considered in its entirety, the evidence did not show that termination of
respondents’ parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. Finally, we find no
merit to respondents’ claims that petitioner failed to modify its services to accommodate
respondents’ mental retardation, contrary to the Americans with Disabilities Act.1 In re Terry,
240 Mich App 14, 27-28; 610 NW2d 563 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ William B. Murphy
1
42 USC 12101 et seq.
-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.
