IN RE JAMES WILLIAMS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JAMES WILLIAMS, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 28, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 289121
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 08-478060
JAMES WILLIAMS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Hoekstra and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals by right the family court’s order terminating his parental rights to the
minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (h).1 We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err by finding at least one statutory ground for termination
of respondent’s parental rights was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR
3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent failed to provide
proper care and custody for the child as he has provided no support for the child and lost contact
with him after his incarceration in 2000. In the two-year period during which he was a part of
the child’s life, respondent engaged in substance abuse with alcohol and cocaine and committed
arson. He was incarcerated and unavailable to the child from 2000 to the present. The evidence
also amply established that there was no reasonable expectation that respondent would be able to
provide proper care and custody for the minor child within a reasonable time considering the
child’s age. Respondent was serving a sentence of incarceration for a minimum of nine and a
maximum of 20 years, with an earliest release date of November 11, 2009. Respondent admitted
having at least seven and possibly as many as 15 major misconduct citations during his current
incarceration and repeatedly absconding while on parole. Thus, it appears doubtful that
respondent would be released on the earliest release date. Even under the earliest release
scenario, respondent would not be in a position to care for the child for 18 months to two years
or longer: His earliest possible release is over one year from the date of the order terminating
1
The mother of the minor child is deceased.
-1-
parental rights, and upon release, respondent must complete a parent-agency agreement that
would take from six months to a year or longer. Considering the uncertainty that respondent will
either be released early or speedily rehabilitated after release, the trial court did not clearly err by
finding that 18 months to two years or longer was not a reasonable time considering the child’s
age and that because of respondent’s incarceration, the child would be deprived of a normal
home for longer than two years. In re Perry, 193 Mich App 648, 650-651; 484 NW2d 768
(1992).
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination was in the best
interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5). Respondent had not seen the ten-year-old child since
he was two, and there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that respondent would be able to
care for the child within a reasonable time. The trial court expressed its concern that
permanency be established for the child, and we agree that termination of respondent’s parental
rights would serve the best interests of the child by allowing him a chance to secure permanency
and stability.
We affirm.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-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.
