IN RE ASHATAIE FUMBELIA GATES MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ASHATAIE FUMBELIA
GATES, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
April 1, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281791
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-030563-NA
TYRA GATES,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Owens and Schuette, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating her parental rights
to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Respondent first argues that the trial court erred in taking jurisdiction over the child.
Respondent cannot collaterally attack the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction in this appeal from
the termination order. In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 444; 505 NW2d 834 (1993). The right to
appeal the jurisdictional decision arose upon entry of the initial dispositional order. MCR
3.993(A)(1). Because respondent did not directly appeal that order, she cannot challenge the
court’s exercise of jurisdiction here. In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 679-680; 692 NW2d 708
(2005).
Respondent next argues that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights
because termination was contrary to the child’s best interests. We disagree.
Once a statutory ground for termination has been proven, “the court shall order
termination of parental rights . . . unless the court finds that termination of parental rights to the
child is clearly not in the child’s best interests.” MCL 712A.19b(5). Apart from the fact that
respondent made little effort to participate in reunification services, the evidence showed that she
was a convicted child sex offender who had subjected the child to such trauma that, at the age of
five, she was in therapy because she was acting out sexually and suffering from post-traumatic
stress disorder. The evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental
rights was not in the child’s best interests. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407
-1-
(2000). Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the
child. Id. 356-357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.
