IN RE BILLY LEE EMERY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BILLY LEE EMERY, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
July 31, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281897
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-436117-NA
WILLIAM THOMAS EMERY, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANGELA MARIE CHADWICK,
Respondent.
In the Matter of BILLY LEE EMERY, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
No. 281898
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-436117-NA
v
ANGELA CHADWICK,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
WILLIAM THOMAS EMERY, JR.,
Respondent.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Smolenski and Servitto, JJ.
-1-
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court’s order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), (j), and (m).
We affirm.
Respondents argue that the agency failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite them with
the minor child. We review the trial court’s findings under the clearly erroneous standard. MCR
3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). First, the evidence showed
that the agency provided numerous services to respondents, who had an extensive history with
Child Protective Services, including prior involuntary and voluntary parental terminations. After
the birth of this child, respondents were given “preventive services” to prevent his removal. It
was only after their failure to accept and comply with the offered services that the agency filed
the petition for termination. Further, the agency was not required to make reasonable efforts to
aid respondents. Under MCL 712A.19a(2)(c), reasonable efforts to reunite the child and family
are not required if the parent has had rights to the child’s sibling involuntarily terminated. See
also MCL 722.638(1)(b)(i) and (ii), MCR 3.977(E), and In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 26 n 4;
610 NW2d 563 (2000).
The fact that the child appeared to be healthy at the time of his removal did not negate the
conclusion that he was at risk of harm with respondents. See, generally, In re AH, 245 Mich App
77, 84; 627 NW2d 33 (2001), (discussing the doctrine of anticipatory neglect). In addition,
respondents’ reliance on the paternal grandfather’s contradictory testimony is misplaced. We
give regard to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses
who appeared before it. MCR 2.613(C); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161
(1989).
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
-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.
