IN RE ASHLEY ROSS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________________
In the Matter of ASHLEY ROSS and MARK
WELLS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 9, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
MICHELLE ROSS and MAX WELLS,
Nos. 211217;211377
Genesee Juvenile Court
LC No. 96-106564 NA
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Saad and P.H. Chamberlain*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In Docket No. 211217, respondent Michelle Ross appeals as of right from the juvenile court
order terminating her parental rights to the minor children. In Docket No. 211377, respondent Max
Wells appeals as of right from the same juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to his minor
child, Mark Wells. We affirm.
In Docket No. 211217, the juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds
for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and
(j), were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974; In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, respondent Ross does not contend, nor does the record indicate,
that termination of Ross’ parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564
NW2d 156 (1997).
Respondent Ross also argues that the Family Independence Agency failed to make reasonable
accommodations for her mental illness in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 USC
12131 et seq. Because respondent failed to raise this issue below, we consider it waived. Vander
Bossche v Valley Pub, 203 Mich App 632, 641; 513 NW2d 225 (1994); In re CM, 526 NW2d 562
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
(Iowa App, 1994). Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent Ross’ parental rights
to the children.
In Docket No. 211377, the juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds
for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii) and (g) were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974; In re Miller, supra. Respondent Wells’
claim that the trial court erred by not inquiring into his ability to properly care for his child is without
merit, because the evidence showed that Wells did not even visit his child until after the termination
process began. Respondent Wells also failed to show that termination of his parental rights was clearly
not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith,
supra. Respondent Wells’ remaining issues are not preserved for appeal because they were not set
forth in his statement of the questions involved. MCR 7.212(C)(5); Lansing v Hartsuff, 213 Mich
App 338, 351; 539 NW2d 781 (1995). Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err in terminating
respondent Wells’ parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Paul H. Chamberlain
-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.
