IN RE SAMANTHA STALTER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SS, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 16, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 225400
Gladwin Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-000102-NA
MICHELL STALTER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TREVOR STALTER,
Respondent.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Whitbeck and J. L. Martlew*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), (i), (j), and (l); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), (i), (j), and (l). We affirm.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the family court did not clearly err in
finding that subsections 19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j) were all established by clear and
convincing evidence.1 In particular, we note that termination was clearly justifiable under
subsection (g). Respondent-appellant’s willingness to live in utterly deplorable conditions as
well as her inappropriate discipline techniques and failure to make any significant improvement
through her parenting classes demonstrate that she will not be likely to provide proper care and
1
MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
custody for her child. Given the child’s special needs and respondent-appellant’s past failures in
this area, termination at this time was appropriate even though respondent-appellant had found a
marginally better home. Further, the evidence did not establish that termination of respondentappellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests.2 Thus, we hold the family
court did not err by terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the child.3
We decline to reach the merits of respondent-appellant’s constitutional challenges to
§§ 19b(3)(i) and (l). Because only one statutory ground is required in order to terminate parental
rights,4 respondent-appellant’s constitutional challenges, even if successful, would not merit any
relief. We decline to reach constitutional questions that are not necessary to resolve the case at
hand.5
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Jeffrey L. Martlew
2
MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612
NW2d 407 (2000).
3
Trejo, supra at 356-357.
4
In re IEM, 233 Mich App 438, 450; 592 NW2d 751 (1999).
5
Booth Newspapers, Inc v University of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 234; 507 NW2d
422 (1993).
-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.
