IN RE VAUGHNS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of C.C.V. and C.V., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 19, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 234480
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-382227
WILLIE MARIE TURNER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHARLES VAUGHNS,
Respondent.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Cooper and D.P. Ryan*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent claims an appeal from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to
her children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).1 We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). If the trial court determines
that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or more
statutory grounds for termination, the court must terminate parental rights unless it finds from
evidence on the whole record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
1
Respondent’s brief erroneously states that her parental rights were also terminated pursuant to
MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) (desertion). The trial court cited this ground in support of its decision
terminating the parental rights of respondent Charles Vaughns, the children’s father. Respondent
Vaughns has not appealed the trial court’s order.
-1-
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review the trial
court’s decision regarding the child’s best interests for clear error. Id. at 356-357.
We hold that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established one or
more statutory grounds for termination of respondent’s parental rights. Petitioner initiated this
action because respondent’s longstanding substance abuse problem prevented her from taking
proper care of the children. Respondent made several attempts to address her addiction, but at
the time of the permanent custody hearing she had made no progress. Respondent was
unemployed and did not have appropriate housing. The trial court did not clearly err in finding
that termination of respondent’s parental rights was warranted on the grounds that the conditions
that led to the adjudication continued to exist and were not reasonably likely to be rectified
within a reasonable time, MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), that respondent failed to provide proper care
or custody for the children and could not be expected to do so within a reasonable time, MCL
712A.19b(3)(g), and that it was reasonably likely that the children would be harmed if returned
to respondent’s care, MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). The evidence did not show that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was clearly contrary to the children’s best interests. MCR 5.974(I);
Trejo, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Daniel P. Ryan
-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.
