IN RE TYLER RATCLIFF MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MARY RATCLIFF, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 8, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 272209
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-000139-NA
ROBERT RATCLIFF,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SHANNON RATCLIFF,
Respondent.
In the Matter of ALLYSON RATCLIFF, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 272210
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-000141-NA
ROBERT RATCLIFF,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SHANNON RATCLIFF,
Respondent.
-1-
In the Matter of TYLER RATCLIFF, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 272211
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-000140-NA
ROBERT RATCLIFF,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SHANNON RATCLIFF,
Respondent.
Before: Servitto, P.J., and Talbot and Schuette, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent-appellant appeals as of right the order of the
trial court terminating his parental rights to his minor children pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. These appeals are being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that clear and convincing evidence supported
the statutory grounds for termination. MCR 3.977(J); In re Fried, 266 Mich App 535, 540-541;
702 NW2d 192 (2005). Even though he knew that his parental rights were at stake, respondentappellant failed to adequately address his substance abuse and engaged in a number of actions
that resulted in his incarceration. As a result, respondent-appellant was unavailable to work
toward reunification with his children during much of the time that the case was pending before
the trial court. At the time of termination, respondent-appellant had not secured housing,
remained unemployed, and, despite his participation in various substance abuse treatment
programs, had not demonstrated that he could remain drug free for any length of time, other than
when incarcerated.
Once the petitioner had established a statutory ground for termination, the trial court was
required to order termination of parental rights unless the court found from evidence on the
whole record that termination was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5);
In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although respondentappellant parented appropriately during visits with the children, and the children were very
attached to him, respondent-appellant dashed the children’s hopes repeatedly by promising that
he would soon regain custody of them and then failing to take any of the necessary steps, such as
-2-
securing housing and employment and avoiding incarceration. On this record, it cannot be said
that the trial court erred in its determination that the children’s best interests did not preclude
termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Bill Schuette
-3-
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.
