IN RE MICHAEL WILLIAMS JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MICHAEL WILLIAMS, JR.,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
April 28, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 288260
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2007-000020-NA
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LASHAWNDA WRIGHT,
Respondent.
In the Matter of MICHAEL WILLIAMS, JR.,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 288304
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2007-000020-NA
LASHAWNDA WRIGHT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, SR.,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murphy and M. J. Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent-father appeals as of right from the trial court
order terminating his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j), and
respondent-mother appeals as of right from the same order terminating her parental rights to the
minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory bases for termination of
both respondents’ parental rights had been established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR
3.977(J); In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re Fried, 266 Mich
App 535, 540-541; 702 NW2d 192 (2005).
When the child was born, his meconium tested positive for cocaine and he was diagnosed
with syphilis. Respondent-mother admitted to the daily use of cocaine, and she exhibited signs
of withdrawal while in the hospital to give birth. Of 124 scheduled drug screens, respondentmother participated in only 26 screens, and 17 of those resulted in positive tests for cocaine use.
Respondent-mother failed to rectify the conditions that led to adjudication. Given her repeated
inability to conquer her drug addiction over the 20 months that the child was in care, it was not
clearly erroneous for the court to find that she would not be able to do so within a reasonable
time given the age of the child. Respondent-mother was unable to provide any care or custody of
the minor child, let alone proper care or custody, because of her drug addiction, unemployment,
and lack of housing. The fact that others, respondent-father’s parents, may have been providing
proper care or custody is not relevant to the length of time the parent should be given to
demonstrate an ability to properly provide for a child. We agree with the trial court that there
was a reasonable likelihood that the child would be harmed if returned to respondent-mother’s
care. Respondent-mother had yet to cease harming herself such that she would be able to
provide a safe and nurturing home for her child.
Respondent-father failed to provide care or custody of the minor child at any time during
this case. Although there was evidence that he at times provided financial assistance to his
parents, with whom the child was living, there was no evidence that he ever actually attempted to
take on the role of caregiver even though he lived in the same home as his child. Respondentfather’s objective was to have the child’s mother be the primary caregiver and he would merely
be a “backup” parent. Given respondent-mother’s circumstances, including her history of
addiction to cocaine, respondent-father’s objective reflects poor insight and is out of touch with
reality. Also, there was evidence that respondent-father suffers from a chronic lung disease and
that his doctor indicated that it would prevent him from being able to raise a child on his own.
We find no clear error with respect to the court’s finding that MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) was satisfied
by clear and convincing evidence. Because only one statutory ground for termination need be
established, In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991), it is unnecessary to
address § 19b(3)(j).
Finally, contrary to both respondents’ appellate arguments, the record reveals that the
trial court did find that termination was in the best interest of the child as required under the
current version of MCL 712A.19b(5). In light of respondent-mother’s unstable situation and the
-2-
fact that respondent-father had shown no real desire to be a primary caregiver, and considering
that the minor child had been in care for 20 months and deserved permanency, we find no clear
error in the trial court’s best-interests determination.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-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.
