IN RE WESTCOTT/MILLIGAN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALEXANDER JAMES
WESTCOTT and MICHAELA LOUISA
MILLIGAN, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 22, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252348
Van Buren Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-013675
BILLIE JOE WESTCOTT,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Murphy and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Westcott appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
Respondent does not challenge the trial court’s findings regarding the statutory grounds
for termination or the best interests of the children and we find no clear error with respect to the
court’s findings, which were amply supported by the evidence. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent’s sole claim is that petitioner failed to offer sufficient
services to facilitate reunification. We disagree.
If a child becomes a court ward due to neglect, the agency must prepare a case service
plan before an order of disposition is entered. MCL 712A.18f(2). The service plan must include
a schedule of services to be provided to the parent, child, and foster parent to facilitate the child’s
return to his or her home or to facilitate the child’s permanent placement. MCL 712A.18f(3)(d).
The record showed that respondent was offered numerous services to prevent the children from
becoming court wards but failed to benefit from them. After the children came under the
jurisdiction of the court, the FIA arranged for additional services from several providers.
Respondent participated in some, such as parenting classes and two counseling sessions, and
failed to avail herself of others such as anger management and budgeting classes and the services
offered through the Supported Employment Program and the various shelters in which
respondent occasionally resided. Still other services through the Samaritan Center, Work First,
Project Find, and Family Links could never be implemented or were interrupted because
respondent moved frequently among three different counties, abandoned attempts at
-1-
reunification, even leaving the state for a time, and failed to maintain contact with her
caseworker after returning to Michigan. Respondent’s claim that she was not offered sufficient
services by petitioner to facilitate reunification with the children is without merit.
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.
