IN RE JASON DAVIE MOYER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JASON DAVIE MOYER, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 12, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 275664
Branch Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-003341-NA
AMBER MOYER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RICHARD CURTIS,
Respondent.
Before: Davis, P.J., and Hoekstra and Donofrio, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Amber Moyer appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Respondent first argues that the trial court’s order should be reversed because the trial
court failed to sufficiently state on the record its findings of fact and conclusions of law
regarding the best interests of the minor child. We disagree. MCL 712A.19b(5) states that the
trial court must terminate parental rights once it finds clear and convincing evidence of a
statutory ground under MCL 712A.19b(3), unless it finds that termination is clearly contrary to
the child’s best interests. MCR 3.977(H)(1) requires the trial court to make brief, definite, and
pertinent findings of fact and conclusions on the record before entering an order terminating
parental rights. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 354-355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
In the present case, best interests evidence was presented by petitioner and, to some
extent, respondent. The trial court made specific, definite and pertinent findings of fact on the
record. The trial court did not use the phrase “clearly not in the child’s best interests” or cite
MCL 712A.19b(5). However, it is apparent from the trial court’s findings that it was aware of
the proper standard of proof and correctly applied the law to the facts. In its oral opinion, the
trial court carefully considered all the evidence relative to respondent’s ability to safely care for
-1-
her medically fragile child. The court recognized the progress respondent had made but
ultimately concluded that respondent, because of her own limited capacity, could not safely care
for her child. We conclude that the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on the
best interests issue were sufficient. See, e.g., People v Armstrong, 175 Mich App 181, 184-185;
437 NW2d 343 (1989) (“factual findings are sufficient so long as it appears that the trial court
was aware of the issues in the case and correctly applied the law”).
Next, respondent argues that her attorney was ineffective because he did not present any
witness other than herself. In addition, respondent claims that counsel did not flesh out the best
interests issue and failed to fully develop evidence related to respondent’s efforts toward
improving her parenting skills. Finally, respondent contends that her counsel’s closing
arguments failed to emphasize respondent’s accomplishments and efforts toward correcting
certain of her problems. However, respondent has not established what other evidence could
have been presented that would have shed a better light on her parenting skills and abilities.
Similarly, respondent has not identified any other witness that should have been called to testify
on her behalf. Contrary to respondent’s representations on appeal, on both direct and crossexamination, several of the witnesses testified regarding respondent’s efforts, the challenges she
faced because of her limited capacity, and the progress she had made. However, the
overwhelming weight of evidence established that respondent, due to no fault of her own, lacked
the ability to provide care for her medically fragile son. Indeed, there was persuasive evidence
that respondent lacked the ability to live independently and care for herself. Simply put,
respondent has not demonstrated that her counsel’s performance was deficient or that the
outcome would have been different had counsel been more effective. People v Pickens, 446
Mich 298, 302-303; 521 NW2d 797 (1994); In re CR, 250 Mich App 185, 198; 646 NW2d 506
(2002).
Affirmed.
/s/ Alton T. Davis
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-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.
