in Re munson/nelson Minors
347550
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 10, 2019Background:
- Respondent lived with his five children, his girlfriend, and her two children; the girlfriend’s teenage daughter accused respondent of repeated sexual assault; respondent denied the allegations.
- DHHS filed a petition to remove the children; the trial court authorized filing and respondent demanded a jury at adjudication.
- At trial, the alleged victim testified in detail; DNA from a sex toy corroborated one assault; the mother disbelieved her daughter and later lost parental rights.
- DHHS called respondent as a witness; he answered some questions but invoked the Fifth Amendment to refuse incriminating answers in front of the jury.
- The court admitted respondent’s internet-search history showing incest/father-daughter pornography searches; the jury found the children were neglected/unfit and the court placed respondent’s children in temporary court custody.
- Respondent appealed, raising (1) denial of adjournment to await criminal trial, (2) compelled self-incrimination procedure, (3) admission of pornographic-search evidence, and (4) sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of adjournment to await criminal trial | No adjournment requested; trial should proceed. | Trial should have been postponed until criminal case concluded. | Waived by respondent—counsel expressly declined adjournment at pretrial. |
| Requiring respondent to take stand and assert Fifth in front of jury | Permissible; adverse inference allowed in civil/child-protective proceedings. | Procedure allowed jury to draw negative inference; violated right against compelled self-incrimination. | Rejected; Fifth protects against compelled testimony but adverse inference is permissible in civil/child-protective contexts. |
| Admission of internet-search history/porn evidence (MRE 403, 404, exhibits) | Evidence probative of respondent’s propensity/interest in familial pornography and relevant to anticipatory neglect; properly admitted. | Highly prejudicial, confusing, and should have been excluded or admitted as a single exhibit; also argued other-acts limits. | No abuse of discretion: evidence was probative and not unfairly prejudicial; exhibit-format decision within trial court's control; other-acts claims inadequately developed/abandoned. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for adjudication/jury verdict | Victim testimony corroborated by DNA, respondent’s evasive testimony, and other evidence supported jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b). | Insufficient—pointed to return of another child during proceedings as undermining risk findings. | Evidence was sufficient; record did not show children were returned to respondent, and jury verdict was not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carter, 462 Mich. 206 (waiver by express approval of trial court action)
- People v. Kowalski, 489 Mich. 488 (counsel’s affirmative statements can constitute waiver)
- In re Blakeman, 326 Mich. App. 318 (Fifth Amendment privilege in noncriminal proceedings)
- Phillips v. Deihm, 213 Mich. App. 389 (adverse inference permissible in civil cases)
- People v. Blackston, 481 Mich. 451 (MRE 403 balancing deference to trial court)
- People v. Mills, 450 Mich. 61 (prejudice does not automatically render evidence inadmissible)
- In re BZ, 264 Mich. App. 286 (anticipatory neglect doctrine)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (clear-error standard on review of jurisdictional findings)