IN RE SOLIEL AMEERA WILLIAMS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SOLIEL AMEERA WILLIAMS,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 13, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 279733
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-405669-NA
WENDY LEE WHALIN-HICKSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANTOINE DEVAUGHN WILLIAMS,
Respondent.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Borrello and Gleicher, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the order terminating her parental rights to
the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we
affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence or that the child’s best interests did not preclude
termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353, 355; 612
NW2d 407 (2000); MCR 3.977(J).1
1
The trial court also found statutory grounds for termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights to an older sister of the minor child, but the court determined that termination was not in
that child’s best interests. Thus, this appeal concerns only Soliel.
-1-
The conditions that led to adjudication were environmental neglect and improper
supervision, and respondent-appellant was ordered to attend parenting classes and individual
therapy to address these conditions. Testimony revealed that respondent-appellant was twice
referred to parenting classes and counseling, but she did not participate. Respondent-appellant
and the children never attended family counseling because respondent-appellant was
inappropriate at visits, particularly failing to interact with Soliel, who suffered from selective
mutism. Although respondent-appellant expressed an interest in planning for Soliel, she failed to
attend a team decision meeting regarding the child’s placement in a new foster home.
Respondent-appellant also did not address her own mental health issues. She had been
diagnosed with bipolar disorder, but testified at trial that she had last been treated for the
condition in 2004 and even then did not take the prescribed medication. Despite respondentappellant’s testimony that she was doing “fine” without the medication, she admitted that she
had panic attacks. Respondent-appellant acknowledged that she had not been in a position to
care for her children during the previous two years, and the caseworker opined that respondentappellant would not be in a position to care for the children for at least another year, if ever.
We therefore affirm the decision of the trial court in this matter.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
-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.
