IN RE SLAUGHTER & SLAUGHTER-WILLIS MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of MELODY LA’SHAY SLAUGHTER, DANIELLE SLAUGHTER-WILLIS, and DANNY RAY SLAUGHTER-WILLIS, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED September 25, 1998 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 205612 Berrien Juvenile Court LC No. 96-000045 NA GWENDOLYN SLAUGHTER, Respondent-Appellant, and CURTIS WILLIS and DANNY WILLIS, Respondents. Before: Hood, P.J., and Griffin and O’Connell, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Respondent-appellant’s “conflict-of-interest” argument is not preserved for appellate review because it was not raised below and is not identified in the statement of questions presented. Meagher v McNeely & Lincoln, Inc, 212 Mich App 154, 156; 536 NW2d 851 (1995). Regardless, we conclude that MCL 712A.19a(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19a)(5), does not create any improper conflict of interest for the agency. Moreover, respondent-appellant has not shown that she was denied the -1­ effective assistance of counsel. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 309; 521 NW2d 797 (1994); People v Daniel, 207 Mich App 47, 58; 523 NW2d 830 (1994). Next, the juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence, MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989), and respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Therefore, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children. Id. Affirmed. /s/ Harold Hood /s/ Richard Allen Griffin /s/ Peter D. O’Connell -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.