IN RE QUAZAY WALKER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of QUAZAY WALKER, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 30, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 253923
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 91-223400
DEBRA WALKER,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murray and Fort Hood, 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)(g), (i), (j), and (l). We affirm.
Respondent does not argue that the trial court erred in determining that the statutory
grounds for termination of parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence, but
challenges the trial court’s finding that the evidence did not show that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was clearly contrary to the child’s best interests. A review of the
entire record supported the trial court’s finding that 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, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
The child involved in this proceeding was respondent’s fifth child and was removed from
her at birth. Respondent admitted to using cocaine throughout her pregnancy. The evidence
showed that respondent had been involved in child protective proceedings since 1991 and had a
twenty-three-year struggle with drug addiction, but she had sustained a six-month period of
sobriety since commencement of the current proceeding. While this period of sobriety was
significant for respondent, and respondent exhibited a new commitment, the time for
respondent’s commitment to sobriety was prior to the child’s birth, after her parental rights to his
sibling had been terminated in 2000.
Given the lack of a child-parent bond in this case, respondent’s long history of lack of
appropriate parenting because of drug addiction, and her unsuccessful attempts at treatment for
-1-
her drug addiction in the past, the trial court did not err in finding that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was not clearly contrary to the minor child’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
