In re Keillor
325 Mich. App. 80
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Respondent adopted two children (KK-1, KK-2) in 2011; CPS opened a physical-abuse investigation in 2016 and respondent pleaded no contest to allegations in January 2017.
- A supplemental petition alleged KK-1 was sexually abused by respondent’s live-in, nonparent adult partner; a trial on the supplemental petition and termination was held August 31, 2017.
- KK-1 testified the nonparent adult rubbed her stomach and moved his hand downward toward her pants while they slept in the same bed on a trip to California; she pulled his hand away and fled to the bathroom.
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the nonparent adult sexually abused KK-1 and that there was a reasonable likelihood of future abuse if the children returned home, and it terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(iii) and (j).
- The court of appeals majority affirmed, reasoning that the touching could constitute contact with an "intimate part" (including the groin/inner thigh) and could be construed as for sexual arousal; the dissent argued the evidence did not establish statutory "sexual contact" and that termination was not supported by the required grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(iii) was proved (sexual abuse by a nonparent adult) | Testimony showed the nonparent adult touched KK-1 below her waist in a sexual manner; that meets the statutory definition of sexual contact | KK-1’s testimony showed only rubbing of the stomach/abdomen and that the hand never reached her private parts; statute does not include "stomach" as an intimate part | Majority: Proven by clear and convincing evidence; touching could be of the groin/inner thigh and for sexual purpose; affirmed |
| Whether the statutory definitions (MCL 750.520a(f),(q)) cover the contact described | The definitions of "intimate parts" (groin, inner thigh) are broad enough to include the area below the waist KK-1 described | The Legislature did not include "stomach"; the record shows no contact with enumerated intimate parts or clothing covering them | Majority: Definitions read broadly; reasonable to infer contact with intimate parts; affirmed |
| Whether MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) was proved (reasonable likelihood child harmed if returned based on parent’s conduct/capacity) | Respondent disbelieved the child’s allegations and continued to live with the alleged abuser, creating a likelihood of future harm | Respondent offered to remove the nonparent adult or establish a separate home; no evidence abuse would recur | Majority: Proven because respondent still lived with the nonparent adult and disbelieved KK-1; affirmed |
| Whether termination was in the children's best interests under MCL 712A.19b(5) | Children refused visits, bond was broken, children thriving with relatives willing to adopt; termination provides permanency | Respondent was compliant with services and willing to separate from the nonparent adult if required; termination premature | Majority: Preponderance supports best interests of the children; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (standard of review for termination findings)
- In re Ellis, 294 Mich. App. 30 (clear-and-convincing requirement for statutory grounds)
- In re Harper, 302 Mich. App. 349 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- In re LaFrance Minors, 306 Mich. App. 713 (best-interest determination following statutory finding)
- In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson, 311 Mich. App. 49 (factors for best-interest analysis)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (best-interest focus on the child)
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (clear-error review of best interests)
- In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (trial-court credibility deference)
- In re JK, 468 Mich. 202 (petitioner’s burden to prove statutory grounds)
- McGonegal v. McGonegal, 46 Mich. 66 (deference to trial-court credibility findings)