IN RE NISSAN DONT'E WAYNARD MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of N.D.W., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 20, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238821
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-386660
PREVIN HANDLEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SCHNEKA CHANTE BARNES,
Respondent.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Murphy and Cavanagh, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm. This appeal
is being heard without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. See MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich
331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The primary condition leading to adjudication was the fact
that respondent-appellant was a stranger to the minor child, and there was no bond between
them. Over the course of the proceedings, respondent-appellant did not establish a bond with the
minor child or demonstrate a permanent commitment to fathering the minor child. Respondentappellant had never provided the minor child with care or custody and was seriously behind in
his child support payments for the child. His lack of commitment to parenting demonstrated that
he would not be able to effectively provide proper care or custody over the long term.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. See MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich
-1-
341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). There was no bond between parent and child. Thus, the
trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the child.
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.
