IN RE MCCULLOUGH MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALEXANDER MCCULLOUGH and
CURTIS MCCULLOUGH, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 27, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 199613
Genesee Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-102471-NA
LOYCE MCCULLOUGH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CURTIS WILLIS and FRANK O’NEIL,
Respondents.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 199660
Genesee Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-102471-NA
CURTIS WILLIS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
FRANK O’NEIL and LOYCE MCCULLOUGH,
Respondents.
-1
-2
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Fitzgerald and M.G. Harrison*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In Docket No. 199613, respondent McCullough appeals as of right from the juvenile court
order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (j). In Docket No. 199660, respondent Willis appeals as of right from
the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to the minor child, Alexander McCullough, under
MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g). These appeals have been consolidated for our
review. We affirm.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds for termination of
respondent McCullough’s parental rights were proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re Miller,
433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989); In re Hamlet (After Remand), 225 Mich App 505,
515; __ NW2d __ (1997). Given respondent McCullough’s lengthy history of drug addiction, the
juvenile court did not clearly err in determining that the conditions that led to the adjudication continued
to exist and that she would not be able to rectify these conditions and care for her children within a
reasonable time. Nor did the court clearly err in finding that a reasonable likelihood existed that the
children would be psychologically and emotionally harmed if returned to respondent McCullough’s
home because of her cocaine addiction.
Respondent Willis contends that the juvenile court clearly erred in terminating his parental rights
because petitioner failed to provide any services for him or offer him assistance in obtaining custody.
We disagree. Although petitioner’s caseworker did not expend much effort to explain the proceedings
to him or offer him services and although respondent Willis occasionally visited the child, respondent
Willis never expressed any desire to establish paternity or seek custody of the child. Given that
respondent Willis knew of the proceedings yet expressed no desire to obtain custody, the juvenile court
correctly determined that no reasonable likelihood existed that respondent would be able to provide
proper care and custody for his son within a reasonable time.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Michael G. Harrison
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-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.
