IN RE SUNSHINE LITREENA WILLIAMS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SUNSHINE LITREENA
WILLIAMS, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 22, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 250348
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-333973
KATREENA VINES,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARKELL ANTONIO WILLIAMS-BEY,
Respondent.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Griffin and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (h), 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 § § 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) were
established by clear and convincing evidence.1 MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633;
593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The child was
placed into foster care because respondent-appellant was incarcerated and unable to care for her.
Although respondent-appellant was released from prison in August 2002, she was returned to
prison approximately six weeks later after violating her parole. Respondent-appellant remained
1
The trial court did clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(h) was established because respondentappellant’s release date from prison was uncertain.
-1-
incarcerated at the time of the termination hearing. Sunshine, who was approximately three and
a half years old, had been in foster care for approximately seventeen months at that point and had
spent other portions of her young life in the care of others during respondent-appellant’s previous
incarcerations.
Further, the evidence did not show that the termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in the best interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/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.
