IN RE WELLS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SELESTINO WELLS, ANGEL
WELLS, STEVEN WELLS, ANGELO WELLS,
and SESILIA WELLS, Minors
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 8, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252943
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-263700-NA
STEVEN HARRIS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ROSHELLE ALTAMIRANO, ALFREDO
AMAYA, NOEL PANCHO, and SAUL AVILA,
Respondents-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 his minor child Steven Wells under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), and (g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err when it found that statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent-appellant did not make any effort to contact his child
or caseworkers for five months. He therefore deserted his child and failed to seek custody for at
least ninety-one days. See MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii). The conditions leading to adjudication,
specifically lack of employment and independent housing and an unstable lifestyle, also
continued to exist at the time of termination and were unlikely to change within a reasonable
time. See MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). Finally, respondent-appellant did not provide proper care
and custody in the past because he was incarcerated, and he was unable to do so within a
reasonable time, considering his lack of employment and stable housing and his failure to contact
his child or caseworkers for five months. See MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).
-1-
The evidence also did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights
was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich
341, 356-357, 365; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although respondent-appellant acted appropriately
during visits, there was no evidence the child bonded with respondent-appellant, who had no
contact with the child for his first eight years. Further, respondent-appellant’s lack of
employment and stable housing suggested he could not adequately provide for the child’s basic
needs.
Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights
to the child.
Affirmed.
/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.
