IN RE JACOB KUCHARSKI MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of J. K., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 1, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 235602
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-051501-NA
MELISSA KUCHARSKI,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TRAVIS ENGLEHART,
Respondent.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
son pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) and (g).1 We affirm.
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). If the trial court determines
that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or more
statutory grounds for termination, the trial court must terminate parental rights unless it finds
from evidence on the whole record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests.
MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review the
trial court’s decision regarding the child’s best interests for clear error. Id. at 356-357.
1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of respondent Travis Englehart, the
child’s father. Englehart has not appealed the trial court’s order.
-1-
We hold that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established one or
more statutory grounds for termination of respondent’s parental rights. The evidence showed
respondent was inattentive to her child’s needs and made no concerted effort to redirect his
behavior, that the child resisted interacting with respondent, and that respondent did not address
her child’s speech impairment. The trial court’s findings that respondent had not bonded with or
become attached to the child, that she was not making a concerted effort to improve the state of
her relationship with the child, and that continuation of the status quo would have a permanent
detrimental effect on the child were not clearly erroneous, notwithstanding the presentation of
some evidence to the contrary. Sours, supra. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that
clear and convincing evidence was presented to support termination of respondent’s parental
rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) and (g). The evidence did not show that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCR 5.974(I); Trejo,
supra.
The petition for permanent custody did not cite MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) as a ground for
termination of respondent’s parental rights; however, respondent had adequate notice of the
statutory ground in order to defend against termination under that subsection. No due process
violation occurred. In re Perry, 193 Mich App 648, 651; 484 NW2d 768 (1992).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
