IN RE CHRISTIAN JAMES CHASTINE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CHRISTIAN JAMES CHASTINE,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 21, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 224177
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-035600-NA
DENISE K. DUNCAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHRISTOPHER CHASTINE,
Respondent.
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., Hoekstra and Markey, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by right from the juvenile court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27A.3178(598.19b)(3)(g).
We affirm.
We find from a review of the record that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that
the above-referenced subsection was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR
5.974(I); In re Vasquez, 199 Mich App 44, 51; 501 NW2d 231 (1993). The record shows that
respondent has a history of substance abuse problems and criminal activity. At age 11 she began
using marijuana, by age 16 she used alcohol, and by age 20 she was addicted to snorting cocaine.
She has over a ten-year history of committing felonies, and she engaged in criminal activities
such as shoplifting to support her habit. Although she had a six-year plus period of sobriety, she
returned to using cocaine, this time crack cocaine, and resumed criminal activities to obtain
money for her drug habit. As a result of her activities, she has spent time in jail on multiple
occasions and was incarcerated at the time of the permanent wardship hearing. She used cocaine
-1-
while pregnant and both she and the child tested positive for cocaine at the time of the child’s
birth. Respondent has not followed through with the court orders regarding, among other things,
obtaining substance abuse treatment, counseling, and parenting classes, submitting to urinalysis,
notifying if she is arrested, and contacting the case worker weekly. Nor has she maintained
contact with the case worker in an effort to reunify with her child.
Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the court clearly erred in terminating
respondent’s parental rights. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). To
the extent respondent argues that the court failed to disclose specific findings of fact to support
its conclusions of law, her argument is not supported by the record.
Respondent also argues that she was denied due process where the process used to
terminate her parental rights was unfair due to state inaction, counsel inaction and court error.
We find none of respondent’s due process arguments supported by the record.
Affirmed.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-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.
