IN RE WOODRUM MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of C.W., M.W., and M.M.W., Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED November 15, 2002 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 240129 Calhoun Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 01-000015-NA CECELIA ANN WOODRUM, Respondent-Appellant, and FRANCIS WOODRUM, Respondent. In the Matter of C.W., M.W., and M.M.W., Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 240630 Calhoun Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 01-000015-NA FRANCIS P. WOODRUM, Respondent-Appellant, and CECELIA ANN WOODRUM, Respondent. Before: Whitbeck, C.J. and Hood and Kelly, JJ. -1- MEMORANDUM. Respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order terminating their parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents’ parental rights was not clearly in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to the children. Respondent-mother also argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a mistrial based on the trial court’s improper independent investigation into respondent-mother’s criminal record and divorce proceedings. Because the investigation did not affect the ultimate decision and given that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination, the trial court’s denial of the motion for a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Persichini v William Beaumont Hospital, 238 Mich App 626, 635; 607 NW2d 100 (1999). Affirmed. /s/ William C. Whitbeck /s/ Harold Hood /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.