IN RE ROBERT K CHRISTIANSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ROBERT K. CHRISTIANSON,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 17, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 250196
Delta Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-000006-NA
BRIAN CHRISTIANSON,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and O’Connell and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the order of the trial court terminating his parental
rights to his minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We affirm. This case is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent contends that the trial court erred in finding that clear and convincing
evidence supported termination of his parental rights. However, we find that considerable
evidence existed on the record to support the trial court’s decision that respondent had failed to
provide proper care for the child. While respondent was still living with the child’s mother, the
child lived in deplorable conditions. Respondent himself testified that the home and the child
were continually dirty and uncared for and that respondent did little to remedy the situation.
After separating from the child’s mother, respondent had virtually no contact with the child, even
after the child was placed with respondent’s own parents. Respondent rarely contacted the foster
care worker and was reluctant to support the child financially. While testifying at the
termination hearing, respondent expressed doubts that the child was his biological son.
Ample evidence also exists on the record to support the trial court’s finding that there is
no reasonable expectation that respondent would be able to provide proper care for the child in
the future. Respondent had obtained employment only the day before the termination hearing
and had failed to attend either parenting classes or counseling. He had visited with the child only
rarely, and his testimony did not reflect any of the typical parental emotions of love or concern
for the child. A review of the record indicates that the trial court did not err in finding that the
statutory ground for termination was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR
3.977(J).
-1-
The trial court’s statement that termination would also have been appropriate pursuant to
MCL 712A.19b(c)(i) does not warrant the reversal of the trial court’s order as respondent
suggests because there was ample evidence to support at least one statutory ground for
termination of respondent’s parental rights. Similarly, termination of respondent’s parental
rights was not contrary to the best interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
