In re Brown
305 Mich. App. 623
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- DHS petitioned to terminate respondent’s parental rights to MB, AM, and AK alleging respondent repeatedly allowed them to stay with James "Uncle Lenny," who sexually abused the children despite disclosures to respondent. Petition sought termination at original disposition.
- Kids-TALK forensic interviews of all three children were videorecorded and complied with statutory requirements; children also made statements to CPS workers and MB told his grandmother spontaneously.
- At a two-day tender-years admissibility hearing, forensic interviewers and witnesses testified about the children’s statements; the trial court admitted testimonial accounts under MCR 3.972(C) but refused to admit or view the actual videorecordings in camera despite counsel having previously viewed them.
- The trial court found the children’s out-of-court statements had adequate indicia of trustworthiness (with some reservations about AM and AK) and asserted jurisdiction; at trial it found clear and convincing evidence to terminate respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (b)(iii), (g), and (j).
- Court of Appeals held the trial court plainly erred by failing to admit the videorecordings as required by MCL 712A.17b(5), but concluded the error was harmless because adequate indicia of trustworthiness existed apart from the videos and the remaining evidence supported termination and best-interests findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court was required to admit and view Kids-TALK videorecorded forensic interviews at a tender-years hearing | MCR 3.972(C) permits admission of a child’s statement via witness testimony; petitioner relied on admitted testimony | Respondent argued trial court should have admitted and viewed the videorecordings under MCL 712A.17b(5); videos are best evidence and necessary to assess trustworthiness | Trial court erred: MCL 712A.17b(5) unambiguously requires admission of compliant videorecordings at nonadjudicatory proceedings (tender-years hearing), so videos must be admitted |
| Whether the children’s out-of-court statements had adequate indicia of trustworthiness under MCR 3.972(C)(2)(a) | Petitioner: spontaneity, consistent repetition, expert interviewer assessments, corroboration (MB’s disclosure to grandmother) show trustworthiness | Respondent: alleged inconsistencies between testimonial descriptions and videos; argued lack of trustworthiness that would be clarified by viewing videos | Held: Court found adequate indicia of trustworthiness supported by record independent of the videos (spontaneous disclosure, repetition, expert opinions, corroboration), so admission of testimonial accounts was permissible despite video-admission error |
| Whether statutory grounds for termination (MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (b)(iii), (g), (j)) were proved by clear and convincing evidence | Petitioner: respondent failed to prevent repeated sexual abuse after disclosures; respondent’s unstable housing, CPS history, and ongoing risk justified termination | Respondent: argued lack of present risk and challenged sufficiency of evidence, reliance on testimonial statements problematic without videos | Held: Evidence supports termination—respondent had opportunity to prevent abuse but failed; children suffered repeated abuse; respondent lacked ability to provide proper care and custody; reasonable likelihood of harm if children returned |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | Petitioner: respondent’s inability to protect, unstable housing, neglect history, children’s need for permanence favor termination | Respondent: children bonded to respondent; placed with relatives; respondent attended visits | Held: Best-interests finding not clearly erroneous—respondent’s conduct (allowing continued contact), unstable housing, and inability to provide permanency outweighed bonds and relative placement; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Edry v. Adelman, 486 Mich. 634 (court of appeals reviews evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Lukity, 460 Mich. 484 (preliminary legal questions and evidentiary-law review de novo)
- People v. Harris, 495 Mich. 120 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; give effect to plain language of statute)
- In re Archer, 277 Mich. App. 71 (tender-years evidentiary hearing is nonadjudicative; videorecordings admissible)
- In re Ellis, 294 Mich. App. 30 (clear-and-convincing standard for statutory termination grounds)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (review of best-interest determinations for clear error)
- In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (factors for best-interest analysis: bond, parenting ability, need for permanency/stability/finality)