IN RE ALANTE LESS GROSS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALANTE’ LESS GROSS, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 29, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 221031
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-359074
ANDREA LANETTA GROSS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KEVIN O’NEAL,
Respondent.
Before: Collins, P.J., and Jansen and Zahra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a family court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).1 We affirm.
The family 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). The evidence is overwhelming that respondent-appellant only minimally attempted
to comply with her treatment plan, and that her acute mental illness remains unabated.
1
The order of termination also lists among the statutory bases for termination §19b(3)(i), but, as
petitioner concedes, that subsection is plainly inapplicable in this case.
-1
We further reject respondent-appellant’s argument that a failure on the part of her guardians to
help her recognize and treat her mental illness constitutes a due process violation attributable to the
state. Respondent-appellant appears to argue that, because the family court recognized a ward
guardian relationship between herself and her parents, the state thus bears responsibility for any failure
on the guardians’ part to perform their duties pursuant to that special relationship. Respondent
appellant cites no authority for this proposition and we are unaware of any such responsibility that the
state must bear in such a situation. Because neglect for purposes of termination proceedings need not
be culpable, In re Middleton, 198 Mich App 197, 199; 497 NW2d 214 (1993); In re Campbell, 182
Mich App 70, 82; 451 NW2d 576 (1988), even assuming (without deciding) that respondent
appellant’s guardians are partially to blame for her lack of compliance with her treatment plan, the family
court was not for that reason precluded from finding that respondent-appellant herself was not a fit
parent.
Finally, the evidence did not establish that termination of respondent’s parental rights was clearly
not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo Minors,
462 Mich 341, 354; ___ NW2d ___ (2000). Thus, the family court did not err in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
