IN RE MAREONNA COREY AALIAH WEEMS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MAREONNA COREY AALIAH
WEEMS, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 18, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 245513
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-359488
ANITRIA LAVONNE WEEMS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Neff and White, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (i). We affirm. This case is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds were established by
clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I);1 In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520
(1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). It was undisputed that
respondent-appellant’s parental rights to three older children had been terminated in January
2000. A fourth child of respondent-appellant’s was a temporary court ward at the time of
Mareonna’s birth as a result of respondent-appellant’s substance abuse. Mareonna tested
positive for marijuana at birth. Although respondent-appellant submitted two negative drug
screens after Mareonna’s birth, she did not submit drug screens weekly as required. Respondentappellant also failed to obtain independent housing and did not consistently cooperate with inhome services implemented to address her substance abuse problem, improve her parenting
1
Effective May 1, 2003, the court rules governing proceedings regarding juveniles were
amended and moved to the new MCR subchapter 3.900. In this opinion, we refer to the rules in
effect at the time of the order terminating parental rights. See In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209 n 17;
661 NW2d 216 (2003).
-1-
skills, and provide psychological counseling. Further, the evidence did not show that termination
of respondent-appellant parental rights was clearly not in the best interests of the child, who was
removed from respondent-appellant shortly after birth. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Respondent-appellant has abandoned her claim that she received ineffective assistance of
counsel at trial by failing to include it in her statement of questions presented. In re BKD, 246
Mich App 212, 218; 631 NW2d 353 (2001). In any event, respondent-appellant has failed to
establish that the alleged errors of counsel fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 302-303; 521 NW2d 797 (1994). Respondent-appellant argues
that counsel’s examination of the witnesses was not sufficiently thorough. This is an issue of
trial strategy, which we will not second guess on appeal. People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357,
368; 649 NW2d 94 (2002).
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Helene N. White
-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.
