IN RE CORLEY MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of SHEELA MONIQUE CORLEY, ERIC LOUIS CORLEY, and KEVIN MURRELL CORLEY, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED May 26, 2000 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 220170 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 97-359053 DELORIS CORLEY, aka DELORIS NEWELL, Respondent-Appellant, and LOUIS CORLEY, JR., Respondent. Before: Markey, P.J., and Gribbs and Griffin, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals by right the family court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children, Sheela, Eric, and Kevin. We affirm. Although some confusion exists in the lower court record regarding some of the statutory grounds on which the court relied to terminate respondent-appellant’s parental rights, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in terminating her rights because clear and convincing evidence existed to support termination to Eric and Kevin under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and/or (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), and/or (j), and to Sheela under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), and/or (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g), and/or (j). MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989); In re Huisman, 230 Mich App 372, 384-385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998); In re -1­ Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). The evidence showed that respondent-appellant failed to consistently visit the children, failed to commit to a drug treatment program on an intensive and consistent basis, and could not provide a stable, long-term, and nurturing environment for the children, considering the children’s special emotional needs. The evidence indicated that respondent-appellant did not benefit from the services provided to assist her in having the children returned to her care. Further, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of her parental rights was not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re HallSmith, supra at 473. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children. We affirm. /s/ Jane E. Markey /s/ Roman S. Gribbs /s/ Richard Allen Griffin -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.