IN RE WINSTON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of L.R.W., M.T.W., M.D.W., and
M.R.W., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 17, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 237374
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-368036
MICHELLE RENEE WINSTON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PATRICK FINLEY, TROY JONES, MICHAEL
JUNO GARRETT, and CARL DOE,
Respondents.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Murphy and Cavanagh, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Although respondent-appellant challenges the trial court’s determination that statutory
grounds were established, the trial court accepted the stipulation of the parties that statutory
grounds had been established and only took evidence regarding the best interests of the children.
Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that statutory grounds for termination of
respondent-appellant’s parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR
5.974(I); In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich
331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Furthermore, the evidence did not show that termination of
respondent-appellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although
respondent-appellant loved her children, she did not have the capacity or ability to care for all of
them and her condition would not improve. The children were adoptable, and it was in their best
-1-
interests to have stability and permanency and not be relegated to life in foster care. Thus, the
trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-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.
