IN RE WADE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of HW, AW, and SW, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 17, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 231281
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-000069-NA
HOPE WADE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
STEVEN WADE,
Respondent.
In the Matter of HW, AW, and SW, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 231282
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-000069-NA
STEVEN WADE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
HOPE WADE,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Saad, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and Murphy, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from the order terminating their parental rights to the
minor children, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g)
and (j). We affirm.
Respondents concede that 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
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). However, they contend that termination of
their parental rights was improper because it was not in the children’s best interests. We
disagree. The evidence, viewed as a whole, did not show that termination of respondents’
parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Respondents also contend that they were prejudiced by the delay in completing the
termination hearing. However, respondents’ parenting time was automatically suspended
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(4); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(4) once the termination petition was
filed. Thus, a more expeditious proceeding would not have allowed respondents further
visitation. Moreover, it was respondents’ own failure to comply with the treatment plan that
caused them to lose visitation after December 21, 1999. Finally, there is no indication that
additional visits would have resulted in favorable evidence or produced a different result.
Accordingly, this argument is without merit.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ William B. Murphy
-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.
