IN RE WATKINS/REED MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
_________________________________________
In the Matter of JEROME WATKINS and
CHANTAL DENE REED, Minors.
UNPUBLISHED
October 5, 2004
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
GWENDOLYN WATKINS, a/k/a GWENDOLYN
REED,
No. 253973
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-678777-NA
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murray and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court order terminating her parental rights to the
minor children based on MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (j), and (l). 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). Further, the evidence failed to establish 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, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
The trial court properly conducted the proceedings in this case according to the
applicable statutes and court rules, thereby adequately safeguarding respondent’s rights. See In
re Brock, 442 Mich 101, 111; 499 NW2d 752 (1993). Respondent pleaded no contest to the
allegations contained in the petition for the termination of her parental rights and the evidence of
her long-term and continued drug use, considered with evidence of the previous termination of
her parental rights to another child because of her drug use, provided clear and convincing
evidence that the statutory grounds for termination existed. Moreover, respondent’s failure to
demonstrate any effort to address her substance abuse problem or to fulfill her duties as a mother
to her special needs children supported the trial court’s finding that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was not contrary to the children’s best interests.
-1-
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.
