IN RE LONDON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of D.L., R.L., and E.L., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 23, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238467
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-630652-NA
PATRICIA POWELL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
WILLIE LONDON,
Respondent.
Before: White, P.J., and Neff and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).1 We affirm.
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
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 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.
1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of respondent Willie London, the
children’s father. London has not appealed the order.
-1-
We hold that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established by
clear and convincing evidence a statutory ground for termination of respondent’s parental rights.
The children were removed from respondent’s custody due in large part to her inability to
maintain suitable housing. Petitioner offered respondent numerous services over the course of
several years. The evidence produced at the permanent custody hearing established that
respondent failed to comply with the parent-agency agreement in some respects, and in particular
failed to obtain and maintain suitable housing. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that
termination of respondent’s parental rights was warranted on the ground that respondent failed to
provide proper care and custody for the children and could not be expected to do so within a
reasonable time considering the ages of the children. MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).
The evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was clearly
not in the children’s best interests. MCR 5.974(I); Trejo, supra. Respondent’s assertion that the
children should have been interviewed in connection with the best interests determination is
without merit. The children’s very young ages prevented them from having significant insights
into their best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
