IN RE SHIELDS-CAMPOS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of K.I.S-C. and K.E.S-C., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 13, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 239917
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 93-305821
ORLANDO CAMPOS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and White and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals by delayed leave granted the order terminating his parental rights to
the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
In order to terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the
statutory grounds for termination in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been met by clear and convincing
evidence. In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1993). This Court reviews the
trial court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. MCR 5.974(I); In re Trejo
Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445
NW2d 161 (1989). Under this standard, the trial court’s decision must strike the reviewing court
as “‘more than just maybe or probably wrong.’” Trejo, supra at 356, quoting In re Sours
Minors, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999).
The evidence established that respondent visited the children only sporadically and made
little effort to interact with them during visits. Additionally, he had a lengthy criminal history
involving drug-related offenses and he failed to submit to either a substance abuse assessment or
weekly drug screens. He has been incarcerated several times, including twice during the
children’s temporary wardship. Another criminal charge for carrying a concealed weapon was
pending against him at the time of the termination hearing. He worked only one week after
being released from prison in 2000. Although he received disability payments through workers’
compensation, the children’s mother testified that he was unwilling to use this money to support
the family. This evidence clearly and convincingly established that the conditions that led to
adjudication (specifically, respondent’s incarcerations) continued to exist and respondent failed
to provide proper care and custody and could not reasonably be expected to do so within a
-1-
reasonable time. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that grounds for termination were
established under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Helene N. White
/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.
