IN RE STEVE MATTHEW PIGNATELLI MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of STEVE MATTHEW
PIGNATELLI, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 8, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252495
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-027783-NA
STEVE MURDAY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOANNE MARIE PIGNATELLI,
Respondent.
In the Matter of JESSICA MARIE PIGNATELLI,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252622
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-027782-NA
JOANNE PIGNATELLI,
Respondent-Appellant.
-1-
In the Matter of
PIGNATELLI, Minor.
STEVE
MATTHEW
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252623
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-027783-NA
JOANNE PIGNATELLI,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
STEVE MURDAY,
Respondent.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Gage and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court orders
terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).
We affirm.
For both respondents, the conditions that led to adjudication included substance abuse
and domestic violence. These conditions continued throughout the case. There was considerable
testimony concerning respondents’ continued use of alcohol. Respondents continued to live
together up to the termination hearing despite numerous instances of domestic violence that were
documented, including incidents in which respondent Murday hit respondent Pignatelli in a bar
and in which he bit her in the face and destroyed her belongings. He also threatened her life
numerous times, once in front of their young son. For her part, respondent Pignatelli tried to run
respondent Murday over with a car in the presence of their son. This was clear and convincing
evidence under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i).
Respondents’ conduct also prevented them from providing proper care and custody to the
children and indicate a risk of harm to the children following likely continued substance abuse
and domestic violence. Respondent Pignatelli verbally abused her daughter through statements
she made, and respondent Murday emotionally abused the son by threatening his mother. The
trial court clearly did not err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
-2-
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(G); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989).
Furthermore, we find no evidence showing that termination was clearly not in the
children’s best interests, particularly given the substance abuse and domestic violence and the
likelihood that these conditions will continue. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondents’
parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-3-
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.
