IN RE SIRGREGORY WASHINGTON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SIRGREGORY WASHINGTON,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 2, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 247219
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-250801-NA
GREGORY WASHINGTON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LETHA BLAND,
Respondent.
In the Matter of SIRGREGORY WASHINGTON,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 247480
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-250801-NA
LETHA BLAND,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GREGORY WASHINGTON,
-1-
Respondent.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Gage and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right and by leave granted the
order terminating their parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(i),
(c)(i), and (l). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I), now MCR 3.977(J); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent Washington made nearly no
effort to complete the treatment plan. He waited seven months, until the petitioner pursued
termination of parental rights, before even signing the treatment plan and then failed to follow
through on any of the goals toward reunification. While the State of South Carolina did early in
the proceedings perform a home study and draft a favorable Family Assessment Summary,
Washington’s reliance upon this evaluation is misplaced because he was living with his parents
and never established that he was paying rent or saving for a home of his own. Washington
never fully demonstrated that he was invested in his son’s care and able to independently parent
his child. Thus, the trial court did not err when it found that MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(i) and (c)(i)
were established by clear and convincing evidence and provided grounds for termination of
Washington’s parental rights.
Similarly, clear and convincing evidence was presented to support termination of
respondent Bland’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (l). At the time of
termination, the condition that led to adjudication, Bland’s mental instability, continued to
hamper her ability to care for her child. Further, her parental rights to two other children were
terminated in Georgia under proceedings similar to those in this state.
Finally, the evidence did not show that termination of either respondents’ parental rights
was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental
rights to their child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
