IN RE HESHIMU LEONARDO LIGGINS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of H.L.L., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 1, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235950
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 85-249764
LEONARD ADRIAN LIGGINS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
VANESSA FAYE BLACK,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Wilder and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly 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). Respondent never began psychiatric treatment. Respondent also
admitted that he did not have sufficient income to provide for his child. Respondent’s failure to
comply with the minimal requirements of the parent-agency agreement justifies termination of
his parental rights based on continuing neglect. The trial court properly terminated respondent’s
parental rights under MCL 712A.19(b)(3)(g) and (j).
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
contrary to the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357;
612 NW2d 407 (2000). The minor child has been in foster care since shortly after his birth in
April 1997. Respondent has failed to overcome his mental health problems and has not
demonstrated progress in providing proper care and custody for the child. The child should not
-1-
wait any longer for a permanent and stable home. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the child.
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.
