IN RE CIAVONE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AMANDA MELISSA CIAVONE,
CAROL TANIA CIAVONE, NICOLE
DANIELLE CIAVONE, and JACOB ZACKERY
CIAVONE, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
February 23, 2010
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 294027
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC Nos. 2008-000599-NA
2008-000600-NA
2008-000601-NA
2008-000602-NA
DENISE RADEMACHER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOHN RICHARD CIAVONE,
Respondent.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., Cavanagh and Davis, JJ
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights
to her four children. Specifically, she argues that the court failed to identify the statutory
grounds under which it was terminating her rights and that there was insufficient evidence
proving both the grounds and that it was in the children’s best interests to terminate her rights.
We affirm.
To issue an order terminating parental rights, the trial court must make findings of fact,
state conclusions of law, and specify the statutory basis for the order. MCL 712A.19b(1); MCR
3.977(H)(1); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Campbell, 170 Mich
App 243, 252; 428 NW2d 347 (1988).
The court identified the grounds under which the petition was filed in its oral opinion,
MCR 3.977(H)(3), and the transcript of the proceedings indicates the court was well aware of the
issues and the law. Adequate appellate review does not require any further explanation. See
-1-
Triple E Produce Corp v Mastronardi Produce Ltd, 209 Mich App 165, 176; 530 NW2d 772
(1995). Thus, there is no need to reverse on this ground.
The substantive evidence of the grounds was also sufficient. Respondent had been
chronically homeless for over a decade, and showed little ability to control her aggressive nature
despite completing an anger management course. While it is possible that she could turn her life
around in a short time, that is not the course her life has taken over a period of many years. The
trial court did not clearly err in finding grounds to terminate her rights. Nor did it err in finding
termination was in the children’s best interests. Respondent’s inability to maintain a stable home
prevented the children from having sufficient stability in their lives.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-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.
