IN RE CUNNINGHAM MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of LESLIE CUNNINGHAM and ROBERT CUNNINGHAM, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED April 20, 2004 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 250471 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 02-406823 AIMEE CUNNINGHAM, Respondent-Appellant. Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Murphy and Smolenski, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (j), and (k)(vi). We affirm. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The evidence revealed that respondent pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to the murder of her youngest child. There was sufficient evidence to support termination under subsections (b)(i), (j), and (k)(vi). The record also revealed respondent was institutionalized at the time of trial, and that there was no clear indication when her mental health would be such that she could be released. It was also unclear whether or not she would be able to function normally outside a structured environment. There was a high probability that respondent would become a threat to herself or to others if she failed to take her medication and cooperate with treatment. Further, 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); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 353-357; 612 NW2nd 407 (2000). Respondent did not argue this issue on appeal and an independent review of the record did not reveal evidence indicating termination would be against -1- the interests of the children. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the children. Affirmed. /s/ Mark J. Cavanagh /s/ William B. Murphy /s/ Michael R. Smolenski -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.