IN RE IMMANUEL CURTIS TILLMAN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of IMMANUEL CURTIS
TILLMAN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 20, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 276941
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-425015-NA
MICHELLINE RUCKER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CURTIS E. TILLMAN,
Respondent.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Hoekstra and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the lower court order terminating her parental rights
to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), (j) and (k)(i). We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), and (g) were each
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633;
593 NW2d 520 (1999). Although respondent initially complied with her treatment plan after her
release from prison and was successful in regaining custody of the child, she eventually became
overwhelmed by the responsibility of child care and relapsed into substance abuse. She
thereafter left with the child, absconded from her parole, and did not notify petitioner of the
child’s whereabouts. The child was left with a relative and respondent did not attempt to contact
the child for a period of more than eight months. During this period, respondent resumed her
criminal activity and relapsed into drug use. She admitted that she had used cocaine for 22 years
and had also started using heroin. In light of this evidence, we find no clear err in the trial
court’s decision to terminate respondent’s parental rights under §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), and (g).
Because only one statutory ground is needed to support termination of parental rights, it is
-1-
unnecessary to determine whether termination was also justified under §§ 19b(3)(j) and (k)(i). In
re Powers, 244 Mich App 111, 117; 624 NW2d 472 (2000).
Further, we find no clear err in the trial court’s best interests decision. In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The child had been in respondent’s custody for
approximately four months during the preceding 3½ years. During that period, the formerly
happy child had developed anger and separation issues, as well as behavioral problems, due to
his many placements. Considering the child’s need for stability, the evidence did not clearly
show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 354. Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
