IN RE WELLS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of L.R.W., C.W., D.D.W., and
B.D.W., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 25, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238262
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-382240
ELIZABETH WELLS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
WILLIAM McGILL and MICHAEL ERVIN,
Respondents.
In the Matter of L.R.W., C.W., D.D.W., and
B.D.W., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238386
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-382240
WILLIAM McGILL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ELIZABETH WELLS and MICHAEL ERVIN,
Respondents.
-1-
In the Matter of L.R.W., C.W., D.D.W., and
B.D.W., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238484
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-382240
MICHAEL ERVIN,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Hoekstra and Gage, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In Docket No. 238262, respondent Elizabeth Wells appeals as of right from the trial court
order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j).
In Docket No. 238386, respondent William McGill appeals as of right from the trial court order
terminating his parental rights to his children, LRW, CW, and DDW, under MCL
712A.19b(3)(h), limiting his appeal to whether termination of his parental rights was in the
children’s best interests. In Docket No. 238484, respondent Michael Ervin appeals as of right
from the trial court order terminating his parental rights to his child BDW under MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j). We affirm.
The children came into the court’s care in 1999 after respondent Wells’ older daughter,
then fourteen years old, alleged that respondent Ervin had inappropriately touched her and that
respondent Wells, who was informed of the inappropriate behavior, had not protected her from
Ervin. At the adjudication trial, the court found that the allegations were substantiated. The
court also found that respondent McGill, who had been convicted of first-degree felony murder
in 1992 and sentenced to life without parole, was unable to protect his children from harm.
As part of their treatment, respondents Wells and Ervin were each required to admit to
the sexual assault and their role in the children coming into the court’s care. Although
respondent Ervin complied with all aspects of his parent-agency agreement other than admitting
to the abuse, the admission was deemed the most important aspect of his treatment. Respondent
Wells failed to acknowledge the abuse or to comply with other aspects of her parent-agency
agreement even after additional services were offered to her because of her diagnosis of mild
mental retardation. Therefore, the court terminated all respondents’ parental rights to their
respective children.
Under the foregoing circumstances, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the
statutory grounds for termination of the parental rights of respondents Wells and Ervin were
-2-
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 any of the
respondents’ 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 each of the respondents’ parental rights to their respective children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-3-
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.
