IN RE WILLIAMS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CW, KW, and SW, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 15, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234012
Cheboygan Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-000634-NA
KATHLEEN WILLIAMS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ROGER WILLIAMS,
Respondent.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Hoekstra and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
By application for leave to appeal, respondent-appellant challenges the trial court order
terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i), (g),
and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not violate respondent’s right to due process by combining the fact
finding and best interests steps at the termination hearing. The court rule applicable in this
matter, MCR 5.974(F), supports the trial court’s actions. Moreover, because respondent’s
counsel requested that the trial court conduct an in camera hearing to obtain the testimony of two
of the minor children and later summarize their testimony on the record, respondent waived any
error. See People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 214-216; 612 NW2d 144 (2000).
Further, we conclude that the trial 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 Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Despite the eldest child’s
report that respondent’s husband, the child’s adoptive father, had sexually abused her,
respondent continued to support the father’s denial of the allegations for more than a year and
attempted to get the child to change her story. Thereafter, at counseling respondent sometimes
-1-
expressed belief in the abused child, at times did not, and at times was ambivalent. According to
that counselor, at a joint session with the eldest child, respondent’s affect and responses
“border[ed] on bizarre” and “[i]t was like all the work that we had done hadn’t made any
difference . . . her denial and her lack of support of [the child] was [sic] just unbelievable.”
Further, while the children were in foster care respondent interacted with a male previously
convicted of criminal sexual conduct and domestic violence. The record demonstrates
respondent’s inability to protect her children. Moreover, the trial court’s finding that no
evidence established that termination was not in the best interests of the children was not clearly
erroneous. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 350-356.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
