IN RE JACKMAN/SATTLER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ABIGAIL PATRICIA RENEÉ
JACKMAN and KATHRYN LEE SATTLER,
Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 13, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281509
Branch Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-003568-NA
JOHN PAUL SATTLER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANGELA MARIE SATTLER,
Respondent.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Sawyer and Murphy, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Petitioner had worked with respondent-appellant and the children’s mother since 2001 to
address concerns of drug abuse, housing, and domestic violence. On November 17, 2006,
petitioner filed a temporary custody petition. After a December 13, 2006, hair follicle test on
respondent-appellant came back positive for cocaine, indicating daily use from 45 to 90 days
preceding the test, petitioner filed a motion and order for rehearing and termination of parental
rights. At the April 17, 2007, termination trial on this petition, the court concluded that, while
the evidence supported the statutory grounds for termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights, termination was contrary to the children’s best interests. The court informed respondent
appellant and the mother that it was giving them one more opportunity to show that they could
care for the children, but admonished them that one positive drug test would be sufficient to
terminate their parental rights. The court ordered respondent-appellant to submit to a substance
abuse assessment and follow any recommendations, submit random drug screens, establish a
stable home environment, obtain and maintain employment, and cooperate with petitioner.
-1-
On April 30, 2007, respondent-appellant submitted to a hair follicle test that came back
positive for cocaine use. Respondent-appellant admitted that he had used cocaine after the April
17 hearing, but denied using any drugs since that time. Respondent-appellant submitted 11 drug
screens between May and August 2007, all of which were negative. Respondent-appellant also
submitted a hair follicle test in July, which came back negative. On August 16, 2007, petitioner
filed a motion and order for rehearing and termination of parental rights on the basis of
respondent-appellant’s long-term drug use and the finding in his psychological examination that
his overall prognosis was poor.
At trial on this petition, the caseworker testified that she was concerned about
respondent-appellant’s positive hair follicle test for cocaine in April, soon after the trial on the
first termination petition, in light of respondent-appellant’s history of relapsing into drug use.
She was also concerned because he never acknowledged to her that he had a drug problem. The
caseworker found respondent-appellant’s housing to be suitable but was concerned that his
housing was in jeopardy. Respondent-appellant’s landlord testified that respondent-appellant
was delinquent in his rental payments but that they had worked out a payment plan and
respondent-appellant was not in danger of eviction. The caseworker was also concerned because
she believed respondent-appellant was not employed. Respondent-appellant informed the court
that he had recently been laid off because of a downturn in business due to the seasonal nature of
his employment but expected to be back to work in a short time. The employer testified that,
although respondent-appellant was laid off because of a lack of work, he did not inform
respondent-appellant that he intended to rehire him.
Several experts also testified. Respondent-appellant’s substance abuse therapist testified
that she had recommended that respondent-appellant participate in substance abuse groups that
also addressed mental health issues and that respondent-appellant consistently and actively
participated in group sessions, which addressed relapse prevention. She testified that, although
she could not guarantee that respondent-appellant would not relapse into drug use, she found that
he had made some progress in addressing the issues that might lead to a relapse. On the other
hand, the clinical psychologist who performed a substance abuse assessment of respondent
appellant found that he suffered from substance abuse dependence and believed, based on
respondent-appellant’s comments, that he was not benefiting from his substance abuse
counseling and the AA meetings he claimed to be attending. The licensed psychologist who
performed a psychological evaluation of respondent-appellant found that respondent-appellant
was an individual who had low frustration tolerance and was vulnerable to becoming very self
absorbed and, because of these personality concerns, his prognosis for addressing his drug abuse
was poor.
Evidence was also presented regarding the children’s welfare. The psychologist who had
evaluated Abigail found that she had suffered from neglect while in the care of her parents and,
along with Abigail’s counselor, found that the child needed a clear, structured environment to
create a sense of permanence and security. The children’s maternal grandfather, with whom the
children resided, testified that, based on their history, respondent-appellant and the mother were
unable to provide stability for the children.
Respondent-appellant admitted to the court that he had a substance abuse problem but
assured the court that he was prepared to remain clean, recognizing the problem that his
substance abuse caused his children. He also stated that he loved the children.
-2-
The foregoing evidence, showing that respondent-appellant used cocaine after the
April 17, 2007, hearing, in which the court had decided not to terminate respondent-appellant’s
parental rights but forewarned him that a single positive drug test would show that he was
incapable of caring for the children, establishes the statutory grounds for termination under
§§19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). MCR 3.977(G)(3); MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). Drug use was a long-standing issue in the instant case. Respondent
appellant’s cocaine use on this single occasion, despite all the negative drug test results in May,
June and July, was especially troubling because of concerns of respondent-appellant’s potential
to relapse.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of his parental rights was clearly not
in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). The children needed stability, which respondent-appellant, based on his
history, was unable to provide. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent
appellant’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ William B. Murphy
-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.