IN RE WILLIAMS/LUNDY MINORS

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of KAYLEN SHANAY WILLIAMS, and ALEXIS PENNY KARON LUNDY, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED November 17, 1998 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 206456 Wayne Juvenile Court LC No. 89-278430 SHAWN LUNDY, Respondent-Appellant, and TARA MELLISA WILLIAMS and LAKYA JUDGE, Respondents. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 206686 Wayne Juvenile Court LC No. 89-278430 TARA MELLISA WILLIAMS, Respondent-Appellant, and SHAWN LUNDY and LAKYA JUDGE, Respondents. -1­ Before: Young, Jr., P.J., and Wahls and Jansen, JJ. MEMORANDUM. In Docket No. 206456, respondent Shawn Lundy appeals as of right from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to his daughter 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). In Docket No. 206686, respondent Tara Melissa Williams appeals as of right from the same order terminating her parental rights to her daughters pursuant to the same statutory grounds. We affirm. These cases are being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination set forth at MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) and (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence with regard to respondent Shawn Lundy. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161(1989); In re Hamlet (After Remand), 225 Mich App 505, 515; 571 NW2d 750 (1997). Additionally, the juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination set forth at MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j), were established by clear and convincing evidence with regard to respondent Tara Melissa Williams. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, supra; In re Hamlet (After Remand), supra. Finally, both respondents failed to rebut the statutory presumption that termination of their parental rights is in the minor children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5). Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to the minor children. In re Hamlet (After Remand), supra; In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 471­ 474; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Affirmed. /s/ Robert P. Young, Jr. /s/ Myron H. Wahls /s/ Kathleen Jansen -2­