IN RE WHITE/WILLIAMS MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of BNW, KJW, SMW, and DW, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED February 8, 2002 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 231609 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 87-263065 SHIRLEY WHITE, Respondent-Appellant, and BILLY JEROME LATHAM, WILLIAMS and DARIUS Respondents. In the Matter of BNW, KJW, SMW, and DW, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, Petitioner-Appellee, No. 231733 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 87-263065 v BILLY JEROME WILLIAMS, Respondent-Appellant, and SHIRLEY LOUISE LATHAM, WHITE and DARIUS Respondents. -1- Before: White, P.J., and Whitbeck, C.J., and Holbrook, Jr., J. PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, respondent-mother Shirley White appeals as of right the termination of her parental rights to four minor children: BNW, dob 11-27-83, KJW, dob 2-2289, SMW, dob 2-15-90, and DW, dob 2-26-99 (No. 231609). Respondent-father Billy J. Williams appeals as of right the termination of his parental rights to three1 minor children: DW, KJW, and SMW (No. 231733). BNW’s father, Darius Latham, is not a party to these appeals. We affirm. The court terminated respondent parents’ rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j). “We review for clear error both the court’s decision that a ground for termination has been proven by clear and convincing evidence and, where appropriate, the court’s decision regarding the child’s best interest.” In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Only one statutory ground need be established by clear and convincing evidence to justify termination of parental rights. Id. at 360. A court may terminate parental rights despite a parent’s partial compliance with the parent-agency agreement. See, e.g., Trejo, supra at 360364. Respondent-mother did not submit drug screens as required under the treatment plan, continued to use drugs, and did not have a suitable home or legal source of income. Although she testified that she had just signed up for another in-patient substance abuse program and would be ready to have the children within one year, she had attended at least five other such programs in the past. Respondent-mother’s argument on appeal is that the court erred in finding that one year was not a reasonable time considering the age of the children, but she cites no cases in support. Under the circumstances that the children had been made temporary court wards in April and June 1999, that three of the four children had special needs, that respondent admittedly used crack-cocaine in October 2000 while trial was ongoing, and had a long history of drug use despite repeated treatment for substance abuse, we conclude that the family court finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination was warranted under subsection 19b(3)(c)(i) did not constitute clear error. Respondent-mother does not argue that termination was not in the children’s best interests. Respondent-father did not submit weekly drug screens as required under the treatment plan; some of the drug screens were positive for drugs and he provided no documentation to support that those results were caused by medication he was taking; he testified he was receiving disability benefits but did not provide documentation regarding his income; and did not, until the last day of trial on October 6, 2000, raise that a sister-in-law could assist him in caring for the children. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the family court finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination was warranted under subsection 19b(3)(g) did not 1 However, at trial on October 6, 2000, Williams stated he had recently learned DW was not his biological child. No one was identified as DW’s father. -2- constitute clear error. Respondent-father does not argue that termination was not in the children’s best interests. Affirmed. /s/ Helene N. White /s/ William C. Whitbeck /s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr. -3-

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.