IN RE RAEKWON RAISHAMEER ELROY SLAUGHTER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of RAEKWON RAISHAMEER
ELROY SLAUGHTER, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
September 15, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 290529
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-122663-NA
LACRETA SLAUGHTER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANTHONY GATES,
Respondent.
Before: M. J. Kelly, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Shapiro, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Lacreta Slaughter appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating
her parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We
affirm.
Although respondent acknowledges that her parental rights were terminated under §§
19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j), she addresses only § 19b(3)(c)(i) in her brief on appeal. Where a
respondent does not challenge a trial court’s determination with respect to one or more of several
statutory grounds, this Court may assume that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the
unchallenged grounds were proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re JS & SM, 231 Mich
App 92, 98-99; 585 NW2d 326 (1998), overruled in part on other grounds by In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Regardless, the trial court did not clearly err in finding
that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence.
See MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, supra at 356-357. The child came into care because of ongoing
domestic violence between respondent and her boyfriend. Respondent completed parenting
classes and domestic violence classes, but failed to benefit from them as demonstrated by her
continued relationship with her abuser. Further, respondent failed to maintain regular contact
with her son and did not attend any hearings, including the termination hearing, for nearly a year.
-1-
The evidence also showed that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the
child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
-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.
