IN RE WILLIAMS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DONVONTA WILLIAMS,
DEONDRE WILLIAMS and DEANGELO
WILLIAMS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 15, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234290
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-037337-NA
PAUL WYNN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BRENDA WILLIAMS,
Respondent.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Bandstra and K. F. Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-Appellant Paul Wynn (respondent) appeals as of right the order terminating
his parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(h). We affirm.
Respondent first argues that “the trial court should have required petitioner to confine her
proofs and argument to the three statutory grounds alleged in the petition.” Respondent did not
identify this issue in the statement of questions presented. MCR 7.212(C)(5), Grand Rapids
Employees Independent Credit Union v Grand Rapids, 235 Mich App 398, 409-410; 597 NW2d
284 (1999). Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of
questions presented. Caldwell v Chapman, 240 Mich App 124, 132; 610 NW2d 264 (2000).
Nonetheless, the supplemental amended petition for permanent wardship states with regard to
respondent that respondent “is incarcerated,” and that “since June 12, 1996, respondent has been
incarcerated for possession with intent to deliver cocaine, and was sentenced to 25 to 50 years.
Mr. Wynn will not in the foreseeable future be able to take care of his three children, due to him
being incarcerated.” Thus, the language of the amended petition put respondent on notice that
his incarceration could be a ground upon which an order might be based. Further, respondent
-1-
does not dispute that the clear and convincing evidence was established to support termination of
his parental rights under § 19b(3)(h). In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 470 NW2d 293
(1991).
Respondent also argues that the trial court erred by terminating respondent’s parental
rights without first establishing his paternity after respondent indicated for the first time at the
hearing on the petition for permanent wardship that he did not know if he was the father of all of
the children. This argument is without merit in light of the fact that respondent is named as the
father on the birth certificates of all three children. Given the fact that respondent does not
dispute that the court was presented with clear and convincing evidence to support termination of
respondent’s parental rights under § 19b(3)(h), the trial court properly terminated any parental
rights that respondent had.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
