IN RE ERIKA MARIE PARIS BARNES MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ERIKA MARIE PARIS BARNES,
a Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 26, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 224606
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-339651
CHERISE WOODWARD,
Respondent-Appellant.
and
PHIL BARNES
Respondent
Before: Doctoroff, PJ, Cavanagh and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Cherise Woodward appeals as of right from an order of the Wayne Circuit
Court, Family Division, terminating her parental rights to her child Erika Marie Paris Barnes
(born 3/7/96), pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i),
(g), and (j).1 We affirm.
We review a family court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
5.974(I); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). If a family court
determines that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence one or more statutory
grounds for termination, the court must terminate parental rights unless there exists clear
1
The court also terminated the parental rights of the child’s putative father, Phil Barnes. He has
not appealed the termination.
-1-
evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the child’s best interests.
712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); Trejo, supra at 351-354.
MCL
We disagree with respondent’s argument that the trial court erred when it found that one
or more grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. The record
shows that respondent’s neglect that led to the child becoming a ward of the court in 1996 still
existed at the time the court terminated parental rights in 1999. In addition, there was no
evidence in the record indicating that respondent’s continuing neglect would be rectified within a
reasonable time. MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i). Further, respondent
does not argue that termination was contrary to the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5) We conclude that the trial court did not clearly err when it found that
one or more grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence, and
termination was not against the best interests of the child. Trejo, supra.
Respondent also argues that the court failed to cite the appropriate authority for
termination of her parental rights. Respondent failed to brief this issue in her appeal. An
appellant may not merely announce a position and leave it to this Court to discover and
rationalize the basis for the claim. In re Toler, 193 Mich App 474, 477; 484 NW2d 672 (1992).
Furthermore, respondent’s argument is without merit.
Affirmed.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
