IN RE NICHOLS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of S.J.N. and J.J.N., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 22, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 233089
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-377093
JOHNNY NICHOLS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
VELMA MCCULLOUGH,
Respondent.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 233284
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-377093
VELMA ELOIS MCCULLOUGH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOHNNY NICHOLS,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Wilder and Zahra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
-1-
In these consolidated cases respondents appeal as of right the trial court’s order
terminating their parental rights to their children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).
We affirm in both cases. These appeals are 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
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., 356-357.
We hold the trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established by clear
and convincing evidence the existence of one or more statutory grounds for termination of
respondents’ parental rights. Petitioner sought custody of the children because they did not have
suitable housing and because both respondents had substance abuse problems. At the time of the
permanent custody hearing, which occurred nearly two years after the children were taken into
custody, respondents had not obtained suitable housing or successfully addressed their substance
abuse problems. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondents’
parental rights was warranted on the grounds the conditions that led to adjudication continued to
exist and it was not reasonably likely they would be rectified within a reasonable time, MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i), that respondents did not 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 the children would be harmed if returned to respondents’ custody, MCL
712A.19b(3)(j). The evidence did not show that termination of respondents’ parental rights was
clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5).
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
