IN RE GRAMELSPACHER & KITCHEN MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of LUKE GRAMELSPACHER and CODY KITCHEN, Minors FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, f/k/a DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, UNPUBLISHED May 5, 1998 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 201633 Kent Juvenile Court LC No. 95-000400-NA LAURA GRAMELSPACHER, Respondent-Appellant, and DENNY PETRY and SCOTT KITCHEN, Respondents. Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J. and Gribbs and R.J. Danhof*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), and (g). We affirm. The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 *Former Court of Appeals Judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating -2­ respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5). Testimony at trial established that experts diagnosed respondent-appellant with various mental health conditions. Two caseworkers testified that these conditions affected respondent­ appellant’s ability to parent the children. They testified that respondent-appellant was unable to focus on the needs of the children and to perform certain care-giving tasks. Respondent-appellant’s claim that she had been misdiagnosed misapprehends the testimony at trial. While her diagnosis of bi-polar disorder, made in 1996, may be correct, all testimony regarding the predictability of the effectiveness of treatment was guarded. Moreover, testimony showed that a diagnosis of bi-polar mood disorder did not exclude other diagnoses, such as pervasive personality disorder of borderline schizophrenia. Respondent-appellant’s argument must fail. The juvenile court did not clearly err in its decision. Affirmed. /s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr. /s/ Roman S. Gribbs /s/ Robert J. Danhof -3­

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.