IN RE WATT-PRYOR MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of T.B.W.P. and T.W.P., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 24, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 240894
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 90-285611
SHARON ANN WATT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LARRY PRYOR,
Respondent.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Bandstra and Talbot, 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)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (g), (i), (j), and (l).
We affirm.
Respondent-appellant first argues that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel
when trial counsel failed to object to a question posed by the attorney for the minor children to
the protective services worker. Respondent-appellant has waived this issue by not including it in
her statement of questions presented. In re BKD, 246 Mich App 212, 218; 631 NW2d 353
(2001). In any event, this is not a valid basis for reversal because respondent-appellant has failed
to establish the requisite prejudice to sustain her claim. There was ample evidence that
respondent-appellant had a chronic substance abuse problem dating back to 1990, which had led
to her parental rights to three other children being terminated in three separate child protective
proceedings. In addition, respondent-appellant herself admitted that she used crack cocaine
while pregnant with the twins, T.B.W.P. and T.W.P. Accordingly, respondent-appellant has
failed to show a reasonable probability that if the challenged testimony had not been admitted the
-1-
result of the proceeding would have been different. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 302-303,
314; 521 NW2d 797 (1994).
Respondent-appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
numerous statutory grounds relied upon by the trial court to terminate her parental rights.
Instead, she argues that it was not in the children’s best interests to terminate her parental rights.
The evidence failed to 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, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s
parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
