IN RE HADLEY-WEBSTER/HADLEY/WEBSTER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TACHANIEQUE HADLEYWEBSTER, NAJA HADLEY, a/k/a NAJA
WEBSTER, TROY WEBSTER, JR., SHAHEID
WEBSTER and QURAUN WEBSTER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 1, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235188
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-024838-NA
TROY WEBSTER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHANISE HADLEY,
Respondent.
In the Matter of TACHANIEQUE HADLEYWEBSTER, NAJA HADLEY, a/k/a NAJA
WEBSTER, TROY WEBSTER, JR., SHAHEID
WEBSTER and QURAUN WEBSTER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235258
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-024838-NA
CHANISE HADLEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
-1-
and
TROY WEBSTER,
Respondent.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents-appellants appeal as of right from the trial court order terminating their
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
I
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were established
by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I), In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d
161 (1989). Petitioner-appellee’s evidence established that respondent-appellant Hadley failed
to stabilize her life sufficiently to provide proper care and custody for her children. The
evidence also established that respondent-appellant Webster was likely to face future
incarceration, leaving him unavailable to his children. Because the evidence did not show that
termination of respondents-appellants’ parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best
interests, the trial court did not err in terminating their parental rights. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re
Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
II
Webster’s argument that the trial judge should have disqualified himself is without merit,
as he failed to overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality. Cain v Dep't of Corrections,
451 Mich 470, 497; 548 NW2d 210 (1996); MCR 2.003(B).
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.
