IN RE CARMELA CORLISS MAY MINOR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of C.C.M., Minor. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED July 23, 2002 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 236831 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 98-366326 JOYCE YVONNE MAY, Respondent-Appellant, and HENRY WILLIS, Respondent. Before: Talbot, P.J., and Cooper and D.P. Ryan*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).1 We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). If the trial court determines that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or more statutory grounds for termination, the court must terminate parental rights unless it finds from evidence on the whole record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review the trial court’s decision regarding the child’s best interests for clear error. Id. at 356-357. * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. 1 The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of respondent Henry Willis, the putative father of C.C.M. Willis has not appealed the order. -1- We hold that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established one or more statutory grounds for the termination of respondent’s parental rights. The child was removed from respondent’s custody after the police conducted a drug raid on her home. Respondent admitted that she had a longstanding addiction to crack cocaine, but denied that she needed treatment for her condition. Respondent signed a parent-agent agreement that required her to participate in substance abuse treatment; however, respondent made no effort to comply with the agreement. Respondent failed to follow up on numerous referrals for services provided to her by petitioner. The trial court’s finding that petitioner made reasonable efforts to reunite the family was not clearly erroneous. Sours, supra. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was warranted on the grounds that the conditions that led to the adjudication continued to exist and were not reasonably likely to be rectified within a reasonable time, MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), that respondent failed to provide proper care or custody for the child and could not be expected to do so within a reasonable time, MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), and that it was reasonably likely that the child would be harmed if returned to respondent’s care, MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). The evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s rights was clearly contrary to the child’s best interests. MCR 5.974; Trejo, supra. Affirmed. /s/ Michael J. Talbot /s/ Jessica R. Cooper /s/ Daniel P. Ryan -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.