IN RE MANNING MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of STEVEN BERNARD MANNING
and DAVID THOMAS MANNING, Minors
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 15, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
No. 205510
St. Clair Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-000349
v
GERALDINE MANNING,
Respondent-Appellant.
and
STEVEN SCHFILED and DAVID RITTER,
Respondents.
Before: Neff, P.J., and White and D. A. Teeple,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to
the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b) (3)(c)(i), (g)
and (j). We affirm. This case has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
A decision regarding termination of parental rights is reviewed in its entirety for clear error. In
re Hamlet (After Remand), 225 Mich App 505, 515; 571 NW2d 750 (1997).
In the instant case, there was clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that led to
adjudication continued to exist by the time of the trial, nearly two years after the children were found
within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Respondent still had not learned appropriate parenting skills.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
She had not obtained “stable” housing, or permanent employment. She had not attended appointments
for individual counseling and the clinic closed her file.
The “lack of consistent limits and structure” in the children’s lives, for which respondent was
responsible, was a large part of the “conditions that led to adjudication” of the children. Plainly, these
conditions continued to exist when the petition was filed. MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i).
The same evidence supports termination pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) and (j).
Having found that one of the statutory grounds for termination was established, the court was
required to terminate respondent‘s parental rights because she did not show that such was not in the
best interests of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222
Mich App 470; 564 NW2d 156 (1997).
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Donald A. Teeple
-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.
