IN RE STEPHON MARIO WALLS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of STEPHON MARIO WALLS,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 24, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252817
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 92-303072
TANNIA F. WALLS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PAUL LINDSAY,
Respondent.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Gage and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Walls appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i) and (j). We affirm.
Respondent concedes, and we agree, that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that
at least one statutory ground for termination had been proved by clear and convincing evidence.
In re IEM, 233 Mich App 438, 450; 592 NW2d 751 (1999). Further, the trial court’s finding
regarding the child’s best interests was not clearly erroneous. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); MCL 712A.19b(5).
The evidence showed that respondent believed she was bonded to her child, that she
interacted appropriately with him during family visits, and that she wanted to regain custody.
However, the evidence established that respondent had a long-term substance abuse problem that
adversely affected her ability to care for her other children and that problem contributed to the
termination of her parental rights to one of those children. Respondent completed the inpatient
portion of a substance abuse treatment program, but the responsibility of caring for four of her
children caused her to relapse. She entered and failed to complete a second program and had
entered a third program, which was still on-going. Although respondent had made some
-1-
progress in attempting to treat her addiction, that limited progress did not clearly overwhelm her
failure to complete successfully a substance abuse treatment program and make significant
progress in overcoming her addiction during the pendency of the entire case such that
termination was clearly not in the child’s best interest. Trejo, supra, 462 Mich 364. The trial
court’s decision was not clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
