IN RE COREY WIGFALL BERRY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of COREY WIGFALL BERRY,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 28, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255796
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2002-000104-NA
DINICEA WIGFALL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TURQUISE BERRY,
Respondent.
In the Matter of COREY WIGFALL BERRY,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255860
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2002-000104-NA
TURQUISE BERRY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DINICEA WIGFALL,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Murphy, P.J., and White and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order terminating their parental rights
to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
To terminate parental rights the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory
grounds for termination has been met by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). If petitioner has proven at least one ground by clear and
convincing evidence, the trial court must terminate parental rights unless it finds termination is
clearly not in the child’s best interests. Id. at 352-353.
The principal condition that led to the adjudication was both respondents’ substance
abuse. The evidence established that both respondents continued to test positive for drugs and
did not complete their required drug abuse treatment programs. Further, although respondents
had recently gotten jobs and signed a lease on an apartment, there was no reason to conclude that
these jobs and this apartment would be any more permanent than their last ones. The court did
not err in finding that at least one statutory ground for termination was established by clear and
convincing evidence. Over 182 days had elapsed and the conditions that led to the adjudication
continued to exist and there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions would be rectified
within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.
Furthermore, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents’ parental rights
was clearly not in the child’s best interests. Although the child seemed to be somewhat bonded
to respondent Wigfall, the evidence indicated that he would likely be harmed if returned to either
parent’s custody because of their substance abuse and their lack of stability. Thus, the trial court
did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to the minor child.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
