IN RE EVANS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of A.B.W.E., A.M.N.E., T.E.N.E., and
S.L.R.E., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 15, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238356
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2000-641406-NA
KELLY EVANS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PAUL EVANS,
Respondent.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Gage and Meter, 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) and (j).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, 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.
1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of respondent Paul Evans, the
children’s father. Paul Evans has not appealed the order.
-1-
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 the termination of
respondent’s parental rights. The evidence showed that for some time respondent had known
with certainty that one child was sexually abusing another child, but she failed to take sufficient
measures to ensure the abuse did not continue. Respondent admitted she was unable to provide
proper care for the children, and could not give a realistic estimation of when she might be able
to do so without assistance. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was warranted on the grounds that respondent was unable to provide
proper care or custody for the children and could not be expected to be able to do so within a
reasonable time, MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), and there was a reasonable likelihood 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 not in the children’s best interests.
MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
