IN RE WILLS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BW, LW, and RW, III, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 1, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 234880
Ottawa Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-034080-NA
ROBERT WILLS, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TINA LEE,
Respondent.
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Markey and K.F. Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by right the trial court’s order terminating his parental
rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The court’s factual findings were supported by the evidence and, thus, were not clearly
erroneous. In re Vasquez, 199 Mich App 44, 51; 501 NW2d 231 (1993); see, also, MCR
5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the trial court did not
clearly err in finding that at least one statutory ground was established by clear and convincing
evidence. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 350, 352, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The evidence
in this case revealed that the children needed stability and that although appellant did make some
progress during the proceedings in this matter, he failed to demonstrate sufficient progress to
show that he could provide a stable environment for the children for any lengthy amount of time.
For example, appellant failed to maintain adequate housing and employment, failed to overcome
his domestic violence issues, failed to comply with court orders entered to provide stability for
the children, and failed to demonstrate concern for the emotional well-being of his daughters
who appeared to have been sexually abused. Further, because at least one ground for termination
was established, the court was required to terminate appellant’s parental rights unless the court
found that that termination was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In
re Trejo, supra at 354, 364-365. The trial court’s finding regarding the children’s best interests
-1-
was not clearly erroneous. Trejo, supra. The court did not err in terminating appellant’s parental
rights to the children.
We affirm.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
