IN RE WASHINGTON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of D. M. W., J. M. W., L. C. W., and
K. C. W., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 19, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234763
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-374549
SONYA WASHINGTON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RAYMOND HAWK, MARCO SIMMONS,
MANDINGO TOLBERT, and WILLIAM HALL,
Respondents.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Cavanagh and Saad, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent mother appeals by delayed leave granted from the trial court’s order
terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (j), and
(k)(i). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(g) was established by clear and
convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
Because only one statutory ground is required to terminate parental rights, we need not address
whether termination was warranted under the remaining statutory grounds. Further, the evidence
did not show that termination of respondent mother’s parental rights was clearly not in the
children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(3)(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 352-354, 356; 612
NW2d 407 (2000); see also MCR 5.974(E)(2). Thus, the family court did not err in terminating
respondent mother’s parental rights to the children.
-1-
We decline to consider respondent mother’s claims that the trial court erred in its
questioning of witnesses and by refusing to grant two adjournments. These issues are not raised
in the statement of questions presented and, therefore, are not properly before this Court. In re
BKD, 246 Mich App 212, 218; 631 NW2d 535 (2001); Brookshire-Big Tree Ass’n v Oneida
Twp, 225 Mich App 196, 201; 570 NW2d 294 (1997); MCR 7.212(C)(5). Moreover, our careful
review of the record in this case leads us to conclude that respondent’s claims of error with
regard to these issues are without merit.
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Henry William Saad
-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.
