IN RE WACHTER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CRYSTAL WACHTER and
RICHARD WACHTER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 19, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
RICHARD WACHTER,
WACHTER,
SR.
And
DEBRA
No. 217070
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-000407 NA
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Fitzgerald, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from a family court order terminating their parental rights to the
minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (h); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (h). We affirm.
Respondent Debra Wachter claims that the family court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law
are insufficient to permit appellate review. We disagree. The court was required to state “brief, definite
and pertinent findings and conclusions on contested issues.” MCR 5.974(G). The family court cited
the various statutory grounds under which it was terminating respondent Debra Wachter’s parental
rights and, by incorporating petitioner’s closing arguments and the caseworker’s final report, sufficiently
identified the basis for its decision. MCR 5.974(G) was satisfied. In re Conley, 216 Mich App 41,
44; 549 NW2d 353 (1996).
Next, the family court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to both respondents. MCR 5.974(I);
In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Termination of respondent-mother’s
parental rights was warranted in light of her history of failing to exercise proper judgment, which thereby
-1
placed her children at risk, and her failure to make sufficient progress in therapy. Her questionable
personal and sexual conduct was admitted, not as condemnation of her personal character, but because
it was probative of her lack of proper judgment insofar that it affected her children’s safety,
development, and behavior. Respondent-father’s parental rights were properly terminated in light of his
incarceration, his history of failing to provide proper care and custody for his children, and the fact that
his problems required long-term psychological treatment before the children could be expected to be
safe in his custody.
Further, both respondents failed to show that termination of their 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). Although respondent-mother regularly
attended therapy, she failed to recognize the impact of her conduct upon her children and failed to utilize
the parenting skills learned in therapy. Id. Respondent-father failed to come forward with evidence of
care by others to avoid termination of his parental rights. Id. The family court did not err in terminating
respondents’ parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
-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.