IN RE WILLIAMS/ELLISON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DIAMONDIQUE WILLIAMS and
NIVIAH ELLISON, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 8, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252769
Jackson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-004481-NA
DESHAWN ELLISON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TANYA WILLIAMS,
Respondent-Not Participating.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Wilder and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by right from the trial court order terminating his parental
rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b).
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds for termination
of parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The evidence showed that respondentappellant had never provided proper care or custody of the children for any length of time.
During the short times he lived with them, he frequently assaulted their mother, so that the
children feared him. Until the termination hearing, respondent-appellant never showed any
desire to assume responsibility for the children. His usual pattern was to allow others to care for
them. At the time of the termination hearing, respondent-appellant was incarcerated.
Respondent-appellant’s minimization of his violent personality, denial of a substance
abuse problem although he used marijuana everyday, frequent incarcerations, and ignoring in the
children and their well being, indicate that there was no reasonable expectation that he would be
-1-
able to provide the children with proper care or custody within a reasonable time. There was a
great likelihood that they would be emotionally and physically harmed, and neglected if returned
to his care.
The goal of the initial petition was termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights;
it was never petitioner’s goal to reunite him with the children; therefore reunification services
were not required. MCL 712A.18f(3)(e). The evidence showed that the trial court did order
services, but that respondent-appellant avoided contact with the court system and agency because
of outstanding arrest warrants. He made himself unreachable. Therefore, the fact that he was
never provided services was a problem of his own making.
Further, the evidence did not 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). The children were afraid for their safety because of
respondent-appellant, and the evidence was clear that he could not be a suitable, stable parent for
them within a reasonable time.
We affirm.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
