IN RE LOGAN SHOFFNER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of L.S., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 13, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 251640
Montcalm Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2003-000117-NA
BENJAMIN SHOFFNER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MEMORY SHOFFNER,
Respondent-Not Participating.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Murphy and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Benjamin Shoffner appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating
his parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(iii). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that at least one statutory ground for
termination had been proved by clear and convincing evidence. See In re IEM, 233 Mich App
438, 450; 592 NW2d 751 (1999). Respondent caused severe, life-threatening injuries to the
child’s sibling and the mother was unlikely to be able to protect the children from further harm.
Although the court did not expressly identify the statutory basis for its ruling, it is clear
from its statements that it was relying on the petition and the Protective Services Investigation
Summary, which it indicated provided a sufficient factual basis to meet the burden of proof
necessary for termination. The court’s findings were thus sufficient. See In re Conley, 216 Mich
App 41, 44; 549 NW2d 353 (1996); Triple E Produce Corp v Mastronardi Produce, Ltd, 209
Mich App 165, 176; 530 NW2d 772 (1995).
The court was not required to find that termination was in the child’s best interests. In re
Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 357, 364 n 19; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). If at least one statutory
-1-
ground for termination has been proved, the court is required to order termination unless it finds
that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). There was
nothing in the record to indicate that termination was contrary to the child’s best interest.
Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in terminating respondent’s parental rights. See
Trejo, supra at 356-357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
