In re Martin
316 Mich. App. 73
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Child born 2007 alleged sexual abuse: petitioner claimed respondent-father committed penile-anal penetration; allegation appears in medical record and a videorecorded forensic interview (DVD) of the child. Forensic interviewer and child did not testify at trial.
- Respondent-mother admitted to FBI agents that she performed a sexual act with a male stranger in the stranger’s van in the child’s presence, and related text/phone communications indicated she contemplated or solicited the child’s participation for money.
- Trial court held a tender-years hearing, watched the DVD, and concluded it was admissible under both the court rule for child statements and the statute governing videorecorded forensic interviews; it then used the DVD substantively at adjudication for respondent-father.
- The court found jurisdiction and terminated both parents’ rights under multiple statutory grounds (including sexual abuse and failure to provide proper care), and found termination was in the child’s best interests.
- On appeal, the court reversed termination as to respondent-father because the DVD was improperly relied on at adjudication (MCL 712A.17b prohibits substantive use of videorecordings at adjudication); it affirmed termination as to respondent-mother because independent FBI testimony supported the ruling and any DVD error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of child’s videorecorded forensic interview at adjudication | Petitioner: DVD shows child’s statements; DVD admissible under MCR 3.972(C)(2)(a) and MCL 712A.17b | Respondent-father: DVD inadmissible at adjudication because MCL 712A.17b bars substantive use; forensic interviewer did not testify | Court: DVD could not be substantively considered at adjudication; reversed respondent-father’s adjudication and termination and remanded for new adjudication under MCR 3.972(C)(2)(a) |
| Use of DVD at pretrial tender-years hearing | Petitioner: tender-years hearing may admit DVD to assess trustworthiness | Respondents: tender-years use acceptable but not substantive adjudication evidence | Court: DVD admissible at tender-years hearing to assess indicia of trustworthiness, but not to substitute for live testimony at adjudication |
| Sufficiency of evidence against respondent-mother for termination | Petitioner: FBI testimony and mother’s admissions established sexual misconduct and grounds for termination | Respondent-mother: challenges admission of her statements, claims ineffective assistance of counsel, and disputes best-interest finding | Court: Independent FBI testimony and mother’s admissions supported termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), and (j); any error regarding DVD was harmless; ineffective-assistance claims rejected |
| Standard for admitting child hearsay and interaction of MCR 3.972 and MCL 712A.17b | Petitioner: both authorities allow use of child statements in proceedings | Respondents: statutes/rules limit use and protect confrontation rights | Court: MCR 3.972(C)(2)(a) governs adjudication (requires live witness to testify subject to trustworthiness hearing); MCL 712A.17b mandates admission of videorecordings for nonadjudicatory stages only; the two operate in tandem |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lukity, 460 Mich. 484 (review standard for evidentiary rulings)
- In re Brown/Kindle/Muhammad Minors, 305 Mich. App. 623 (admissibility of child statements and interplay with MCL 712A.17b)
- In re Archer, 277 Mich. App. 71 (use of videorecorded statements at tender-years hearing to assess trustworthiness)
- In re Sanders, 495 Mich. 394 (due process requires specific adjudication of each parent; struck down one-parent doctrine)
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (best-interest standard for termination)
- In re Ellis, 294 Mich. App. 30 (only one statutory ground required to terminate parental rights)
- In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (standard of review for termination findings)
- In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- In re Williams, 286 Mich. App. 253 (harmless-error analysis in termination cases)
- People v. Carbin, 463 Mich. 590 (presumption that counsel’s performance is sound trial strategy)