IN RE SKILYANN SMELTZER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of S.S., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 22, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 240913
Hillsdale Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-000553-NA
JUSTINE SMELTZER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LEANN SMELTZER,
Respondent.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Saad and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Justine Smeltzer appeals by right from a circuit court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (i), (j), (k)(ii), (l) and
(n)(i). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination had
been proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d
407 (2000). Further, the trial court did not clearly err in its determination that the evidence, on
the whole record, did not clearly show that termination was clearly not in the child’s best
interest. Id. at 354, 356-357; MCL 712A.19b(5); Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in
terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child. Trejo, supra at 356-357.
Respondent contends the trial court erred in finding the statutory grounds for termination
had been proved because it declined to allow respondent to call witnesses to refute the
allegations of sexual abuse of the minor child’s sibling. We disagree. Defendant was convicted
of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520d, as shown by a certified judgment of
sentence. In an earlier termination proceeding, the child testified to the sexual abuse and
respondent’s parental rights to that child and her siblings were terminated. Because there was no
-1-
dispute that the circuit court had jurisdiction and the judgments were never appealed, they were
final and could not be collaterally attacked in a subsequent action. People v Howard, 212 Mich
App 366, 369; 538 NW2d 44 (1995); SS Aircraft Co v Piper Aircraft Corp, 159 Mich App 389,
393; 406 NW2d 304 (1987). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding
the witnesses’ testimony. Ellsworth v Hotel Corp of America, 236 Mich App 185, 188; 600
NW2d 129 (1999).
We affirm.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
