IN RE NATHAN DOUGLAS FORSHEE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of NATHAN DOUGLAS
FORSHEE, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 15, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 248670
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2002-000019-NA
CHARLES D. FORSHEE,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of NATHAN DOUGLAS
FORSHEE, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 248671
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2002-000019-NA
SHELLEY WIATROLIK,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Neff and White, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents-appellants appeal as of right from the trial court’s order terminating their
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were proven by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich
341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although respondent-father was currently stable and had
made improvements in his life, expert testimony and respondent-father’s history established that
-1-
the addition of caring for the autistic and mentally impaired minor child would destabilize
respondent-father’s fragile mental balance. Respondent-father’s history shows he is very
susceptible to stress. Further, there was evidence that respondent father failed to appreciate that
he had harmed the child by striking him with a shower head, and that he failed to respond
promptly when he observed the mother’s boyfriend sexually abusing the child. The trial court
did not err in finding that the conditions of adjudication continued to exist, that there was no
reasonable expectation that respondent-father could properly care for the minor child within a
reasonable time, that there was a reasonable likelihood the child would be harmed if returned to
respondent-father’s home.
The trial court also did not clearly err in terminating the parental rights of respondentmother. Evidence presented at trial showed respondent-mother’s continued problems with anger
management. Further, she had little experience in caring for the minor child and was
uncomfortable with his special needs. She also displayed symptoms of a mental disorder and
was very resistant to change, thus making progress unlikely. Her teacher and therapists reported
little or no benefit gained after classes and a year of counseling. Thus, the trial court did not err
in finding that the conditions of adjudication continued to exist, that there was no reasonable
expectation that respondent-mother could properly care for the minor child within a reasonable
time, and that there was a reasonable likelihood the child would be harmed if returned to
respondent-mother’s home.
Further, there was evidence that because of the child’s autism and low level of
functioning, he needs an especially stable and secure environment, and that visitations with
respondents would be followed by increases in his anxious behaviors, such as vomiting and
biting himself. Thus, the trial court did not err in finding that termination of respondent-father’s
and mother’s rights was not contrary to the minor child’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Helene N. White
-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.
