in Re hewitt/yoesting Minors
338329
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Petition filed Dec 2015 after domestic violence between respondent and husband; respondent entered pleas and children remained with her while reunification services were provided.
- Supplemental petition filed Aug 2, 2016 after LY left home with family friend David Brigham on July 30, 2016 and was physically and sexually assaulted for hours; allegations that respondent and husband associated sexually with Brigham and knew him to be dangerous.
- Respondent admitted prior failures to protect (including prior husband’s sexual abuse of another child) and conceded Brigham assaulted LY; she acknowledged learning that Brigham may have molested his own daughters but did not warn her children.
- Medical testimony described severe, widespread injuries to LY; ER nurse testified respondent appeared disengaged (on her phone), sought to leave, and showed limited comforting behavior.
- Trial court found respondent failed to protect her children, had not benefited from services, and demonstrated lack of parental alarm and compassion; it terminated parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (g), and (j) and found termination was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in terminating parental rights generally | Petitioner argued clear-and-convincing evidence supported statutory grounds (b)(ii), (g), (j) and best-interest finding | Respondent argued the court misconstrued evidence and urged reweighing of testimony in her favor | Court affirmed; no clear error and trial court credibility findings entitled to deference |
| Admissibility of ER nurse’s opinion about respondent’s behavior | Nurse’s lay opinion was relevant and helpful to assess parental capacity and empathy | Respondent objected that opinion was personal, witness not qualified as expert, and thus irrelevant/improper | Court overruled objection: dispositional hearings admit broader evidence; opinion admissible as MRE 701 lay opinion |
| Exclusion of testimony about number of children in foster home | Petitioner maintained foster-home details were not material to best-interest beyond general foster conditions | Respondent argued number of children in foster home relevant for best-interest comparison to parent’s home | Court sustained objection as irrelevant; trial court not persuaded number would aid respondent’s case and other fostering-condition evidence was received |
| Use of anticipatory neglect / prior-child treatment as basis for future risk | Petitioner asserted respondent’s prior failures (including earlier sexual-abuse case) show reasonable likelihood of future harm | Respondent did not meaningfully contest linkage or specific findings on appeal | Court accepted anticipatory-neglect reasoning (In re LaFrance) and found reasonable likelihood of future harm |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (discussion of standard of review and clear-error standard for termination)
- In re Dearmon, 303 Mich. App. 684 (deference to trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses)
- In re LaFrance, 306 Mich. App. 713 (recognizing anticipatory neglect—parent’s treatment of one child probative for others)
- DeGeorge v. Warheit, 276 Mich. App. 587 (appellate briefing requirements; issues not developed are abandoned)
- Houghton v. Keller, 256 Mich. App. 336 (failure to address merits constitutes abandonment)
- Price v. Long Realty, Inc., 199 Mich. App. 461 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)