IN RE ALLYSON ROTTIERS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALLYSON ROTTIERS, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 30, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 220373
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-043414-NA
CYNTHIA ROTTIERS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TIMOTHY NILES,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and Zahra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
We review the family court’s termination decision in its entirety for clear error. In Boursaw,
239 Mich App 161, 169; 607 NW2d 408 (1999). We conclude the trial court did not clearly err in
finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence.
MCL 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
Allyson was originally adjudicated a temporary court ward because of respondent mother’s
cocaine addiction and her inability to provide Allyson with a suitable, stable, and safe home. At the time
of the termination hearing, over two years later, the conditions that led to the initial adjudication still had
-1
not been rectified. Therefore, the evidence supports termination of the respondent mother’s parental
rights under § 19b(3)(i). Moreover, even though only a single statutory ground is required in order to
terminate parental rights, In re Sours, 459 Mich 629; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re McIntyre, 192
Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991), the above evidence also supported termination of
respondent mother’s parental rights under § 19b(3)(g) and (j). The evidence indicated that respondent
mother, because of her drug addiction and inability to provide a safe, stable, suitable home, was unable
to provide proper care and custody for Allyson at the time of the termination hearing and, in light of her
continuing drug addiction, there was little likelihood that she would be able to do so within a reasonable
period of time. Respondent mother also acknowledged that her continuing drug relapses would place
Allyson at risk for harm.
Further, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of her parental rights was clearly
not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5). Acknowledging the
importance of the child-parent relationship, we nonetheless believe that the record supports the
conclusion that the best interests of the child are served by termination of respondent-mother’s parental
rights. In re Boursaw, supra at 180. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent
appellant’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
