IN RE JAMES MARTIN CONLIN II
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JAMES MARTIN CONLIN II,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
September 15, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 291274
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 08-000634-NA
MARJORIE CONLIN,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Meter and Beckering, 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)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j). We affirm. This
appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Initially, although respondent argues that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that
§§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), and (g) were all established by clear and convincing evidence, she fails to
address the circuit court’s reliance on § 19b(3)(j) as an additional ground for termination. 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 ground was proven by clear and convincing evidence. See 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). Further, a respondent’s failure to address an
issue that must necessarily be reached to reverse the trial court precludes appellate relief. See
City of Riverview v Sibley Limestone, 270 Mich App 627, 638; 716 NW2d 615 (2006).
Regardless, the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that each of the statutory
grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(G); In
re Trejo, supra at 355, 357. The child came into care because respondent was homeless and had
no source of income. There was additional information that respondent had a substance abuse
problem and limited cognitive ability. Respondent did not comply with drug screens, which
affected her ability to exercise visitation, did not attend the Families in Transition program for
parenting instruction and counseling, and never obtained stable, independent housing or a job.
She then left the state to give birth to another child and never returned.
-1-
Further, considering respondent’s limitations and her failure to make any effort to
develop adequate parenting skills, the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that termination
of respondent’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo,
supra at 356-357. Although respondent asserts that it is not in the child’s best interests to be
separated from his sibling, the record shows that the child had never met his sibling, who was in
foster care in another state. Thus, there is no merit to this argument.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
-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.
