IN RE JOSEPH L CRAMER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JOSEPH CRAMER, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 31, 2000
Petitioner -Appellee,
v
No. 223786
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-045819-NA
RONALD HAISLIP,
Respondent -Appellant,
and
ALICE NARBUT,
Respondent.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Murphy and Collins, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Ronald Haislip appeals as of right the termination of his parental rights to Joseph
Cramer pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). We
affirm.
In order to terminate parental rights, the circuit court must find that at least one of the statutory
grounds for termination has been met by clear and convincing evidence. In re Jackson, 199 Mich App
22, 25; 501 NW2d 182 (1993). Once a statutory ground is established, termination of parental rights
is mandatory unless the court finds that termination clearly is not in the child’s best interest. MCL
712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
We review the family court’s findings of fact for clear error. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich
624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999).
Termination in this case was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Although the
evidence indicated that the home conditions had improved slightly, they were still unsatisfactory.
-1
Furthermore, testimony at the final hearing showed that respondent made no real progress in improving
his parenting skills during the year that the minor child was in foster care, notwithstanding the numerous
services offered by the Family Independence Agency. Although respondent completed parenting
classes, testimony showed that it made no difference in his behavior toward his child at his visits. We
conclude, therefore, that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for
termination of respondent’s parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. Further,
the evidence did not establish that termination of respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the
child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); Trejo, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
-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.
