IN RE ALYSSA MARIE WHEELER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AMW, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 8, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234822
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-000201-NA
CHRISSY TRUTSCH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RICHARD WHEELER,
Respondent.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234983
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-000201-NA
RICHARD WHEELER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHRISSY TRUTSCH,
Respondent.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Hoekstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
-1-
Respondents appeal as of right from the trial court’s order terminating their parental
rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i) (concerning respondent-mother only),
and (j). We affirm.
On appeal, both respondents argue that there were not sufficient proofs to show by clear
and convincing evidence that their parental rights should be terminated. We review a decision to
terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR 5.974(I); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
With regard to respondent-mother, the record shows that she has visual and severe
hearing impairments and that she previously has had her parental rights to another child
terminated. Regarding her care of AMW, the record shows that she terminated prenatal care,
lacks knowledge about childrearing, lacks stability in housing, and continues a relationship with
respondent-father, who has a history of criminal sexual conduct and is a convicted sexual
offender. Respondent-mother admits that she became pregnant at a time when there was a court
order stating that she should not be around respondent-father.
As to respondent father, he admitted to engaging in a sexual relationship with his younger
sister as a juvenile. Further, he has an adult conviction of fourth degree criminal sexual conduct
in an unrelated matter and refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing in this incident. He denies or
makes excuses for these incidents and does not admit that he has a problem. Under these
circumstances, the trial court did not clearly err in terminating both respondents’ parental rights.
Trejo, supra.
Each respondent presents additional arguments on appeal that were not addressed in their
identical statement of question presented and thus are not properly raised on appeal. MCR
7.212(C)(5); Grand Rapids Employees Independent Union v Grand Rapids, 235 Mich App 398,
409-410; 597 NW2d 284 (1999). Nonetheless, we have considered those arguments and find
each of them to be without merit.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-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.
