IN RE WHITNEY WHITE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of W. W., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 1, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 234648
Sanilac Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-033650-NA
TERRY W. WHITE, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANGELA NICHOLS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of WHITNEY WHITE, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234660
Sanilac Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-033650-NA
ANGELA NICHOLS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TERRY W. WHITE, JR.,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondents appeal as of right the order terminating their parental rights to their
daughter. We affirm. These appeals are being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
After a petition was filed, the court took jurisdiction over the child after respondents
admitted select paragraphs of the petition, and entered into mediation. The mediation resulted in
an initial service plan that required respondents to submit to psychological evaluations, follow
recommendations from those evaluations, and complete certain courses to be determined by
petitioner. The court terminated respondents’ parental rights after it found that respondents
failed to provide the interaction necessary for the child to develop communication, fine motor,
and problem solving skills. Respondents failed to consistently participate in programs to
improve their parenting, and there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions would be
rectified within a reasonable time, given the age of the child. Due to the nature of the
relationship between respondents, it was likely that the child would be harmed if returned to the
parents’ home. The child’s need for permanency established that termination of respondents’
parental rights would be in her best interest.
Under MCL 712A.19b(3), the petitioner for the termination of parental rights
bears the burden of proving at least one ground for termination. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich
341; 617 NW2d 407 (2000). Once the petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence
that persuades the court that a ground for termination is established, termination of parental
rights is mandatory unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the child’s best
interests. Id. at 355-356. Decisions terminating parental rights are reviewed for clear error.
Id.at 356.
There is clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of respondents’
parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). While the physical condition of the
home improved, there was no evidence that either respondent was able to provide the child with
the stimulation and encouragement necessary for her to progress in her development.
Respondents’ failure to properly nurture the child supports a termination of parental rights on all
three statutory grounds. The evidence did not show that termination was clearly not in the best
interest of the child. MCL 712A.19(b)(5); In Re Trejo minors, supra at 356-357..
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
