IN RE GULLEY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JAMAIA FRANCHESCA
GULLEY and GIOVANNI GARY
GULLEY, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 23, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 233040
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-382353
PATRICIA ANN GULLEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JIMMIE C. GULLEY and GARY LEE CHESTER,
Respondents.
In the Matter of JAMAIA FRANCHESCA
GULLEY and GIOVANNI GARY
GULLEY, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 233709
LC No. 99-382353
GARY LEE CHESTER,
1
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PATRICIA ANN GULLEY and JIMMIE C.
GULLEY,
Respondents.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Griffin and Buth*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent-appellant Patricia Ann Gulley appeals as of
right from the order terminating her parental rights to the minor children. Respondent-appellant
Gary Lee Chester appeals by delayed application for leave to appeal from the order terminating
his parental rights to the minor children. Both parents’ rights were terminated pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). Additionally, respondent Chester’s parental rights were also
terminated under § 19b(3)(h). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The respondent mother had a history of drug abuse and had failed to provide a safe,
suitable and stable home. In addition, she failed to visit regularly with the children. She was
given a year and a half and took no steps toward being able to care for the children, nor did she
avail herself of any of the assistance offered to her by the petitioner. With respect to the
respondent father, he had been incarcerated for a large portion of the children’s lives and when
not incarcerated had been using illegal drugs. He had made no plans for the children other than
leaving them with the mother whom he knew to be a drug addict while he was incarcerated. He
failed to provide proper care for the children and there was no reasonable expectation that he
would be able to do so within a reasonable time given the ages of the children.
The trial court did not 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). Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents’
parental rights was clearly not in the best interests of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re
Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The trial court therefore did not err in
terminating respondents’ parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ George S. Buth
2
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
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.
