IN RE RANDOLPH JOSEPH HUZIAK MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of RANDOLPH JOSEPH HUZIAK,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 18, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 278426
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-443178-NA
BRANDY WEAVER,
Respondent,
and
WILLIAM JOSEPH HUZIAK,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of RANDOLPH JOSEPH HUZIAK,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 278427
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-443178-NA
BRANDY WEAVER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
WILLIAM JOSEPH HUZIAK,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Murray, P.J., and Hoekstra and Wilder, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from a circuit court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i),
(g), (j), and (k)(i). We affirm. These appeals are being decided without oral argument pursuant
to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j) were
each proved by clear and convincing evidence with respect to respondent Huziak. In re IEM,
233 Mich App 438, 450; 592 NW2d 751 (1999). Respondent participated in an evaluation at the
Clinic for Child Study, attended a few parenting classes, and visited his son at least once. He
then disappeared for nearly a year. Even when the court authorized the filing of a supplemental
petition for termination, it afforded respondent the opportunity to participate in services and visit
his son, yet he still did nothing apart from attending court hearings. Further, the evidence did not
clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was not in the child’s best interests.
In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); MCL 712A.19b(5). Therefore,
the trial court did not clearly err in terminating respondent Huziak’s parental rights to the child.
In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) were each
proved by clear and convincing evidence with respect to respondent Weaver.1 In re IEM, supra.
Respondent made progress with her treatment plan for approximately six months, but then began
to waiver. Although she never wholly abandoned the service plan apart from a brief period of
incarceration, she was unable to maintain the level of participation necessary to achieve
reunification. She did not complete substance abuse therapy, provided drug screens only when
convenient to her, did not maintain stable employment, and although she completed two sets of
parenting classes, she did not take full advantage of the liberal visitation afforded her and did not
demonstrate good parenting techniques when she did visit. Further, the evidence did not clearly
show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was not in the child’s best interests. In re
Trejo, supra at 354, 356-357; MCL 712A.19b(5). The trial court did not clearly err in
terminating respondent Weaver’s parental rights to the child. In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
We likewise concluded that the trial court did not err in finding that the minor’s best
interests did not preclude termination of both respondents’ parental rights. In re Trejo, supra at
354. With respect to respondent Huziak, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that his
failure to complete any part of the service plan, and his lack of any visitation from November
2005 to May 2007, demonstrated his total lack of interest in caring for his son. And, although
respondent Weaver clearly had a bond with her son, the trial court did not err in determining that
her failure to follow through with the entire service plan, engage in meaningful visitation, and
1
Contrary to what respondent Weaver asserts, the trial court did not rely on § 19b(3)(h)
(imprisonment) as a statutory basis for termination.
-2-
her failure to maintain her early improvements, warranted the conclusion that termination was
not against the child’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-3-
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.
