IN RE KING/WISNIEWSKI/NORWOOD MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of NICHOLAS COREY KING,
WALTER JOHN WISNIEWSKI III, and AMARIA
JERRE NORWOOD, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 19, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 226123
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-039060
LISA KING,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
OSCAR HAMPTON, WALTER JOHN
WISNIEWSKI, and JERRY NORWOOD,
Respondents.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Zahra and B.B. MacKenzie*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant, Lisa King, appeals as of right from the family court order
terminating her parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and
(j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
The family court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds were established
by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 455 NW2d
161 (1989). The conditions that led to adjudication were respondent-appellant’s failure to
supervise, protect and provide for the children. Despite more than two years of services aimed
toward reunification, the evidence suggests that respondent-appellant was unable or unwilling to
benefit from the services and provide proper care and supervision for the children. There is
evidence that, during overnight visits with Nicholas and Amaria, respondent-appellant left the
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
young children unattended and failed to properly feed them. Respondent-appellant’s reaction of
disbelief to a report that Amaria was sexually abused suggests that she would not protect Amaria
from future abuse. Respondent-appellant’s failure to care for Nicholas and Amaria supports the
finding that she could not provide for Walter’s many special needs.
There is not clear evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the children’s
best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354,
364-365; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Accordingly, the family court did not clearly err in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Barbara B. McKenzie
-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.
