in Re Niemasz Minors
333639
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 16, 2017Background
- Father (respondent) cared for three daughters (14, 13, 7) every other weekend after divorce; during one visit a 12‑year‑old friend (S) of the children stayed overnight.
- Older daughter (MRN) discovered respondent on top of S with S’s pants down; MRN heard S tell respondent to "stop." MRN initially told police she had dreamed it but later testified she recanted that statement to protect her father.
- Other daughter (MJN) and S later disclosed the assault; MJN reported prior admissions by respondent that he had a sexual disorder and had engaged in sexual conduct with an underage babysitter.
- Detective testimony included respondent’s admissions of a ‘‘sex problem’’ and comments indicating he had blurred lines regarding victims’ ages; respondent was charged and later convicted of first‑degree criminal sexual conduct.
- DHHS sought termination at initial disposition; the juvenile court adjudicated respondent unfit and terminated parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j); respondent appealed challenging grounds and best‑interests finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS) | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care and no reasonable expectation of improvement) | Respondent’s sexual assault of a child in the home and admissions about a sexual disorder show failure to provide proper care and no reasonable expectation he can safely parent without long‑term treatment | Respondent argued he had otherwise provided proper care for years and could parent; he maintains innocence and seeks reunification | Affirmed: court found assault, trauma to children, respondent’s admissions, lack of treatment, and no reasonable expectation of safe parenting; (g) proved |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood of harm if returned) | Contact would cause further emotional harm; two children already traumatized and youngest likely to be harmed as she ages | Respondent contended he does not pose danger to his children and that termination was excessive | Affirmed: court found existing harm and significant risk to all children if returned; (j) proved |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | DHHS: children need permanency, stability, protection; father’s conviction, history, likely imprisonment, and need for long treatment make termination necessary | Respondent: argued love and prior parenting support reunification; challenged best‑interests conclusion | Affirmed: weight on children’s safety, trauma, need for permanence, and father’s incarceration/treatment needs favored termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (2000) (petitioner bears burden to prove statutory ground for termination)
- In re Rood, 483 Mich. 73 (2009) (standard of review for factual findings in termination cases)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (2013) (clear‑error standard and focus on trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses)
- In re Williams, 286 Mich. App. 253 (2009) (discussion of clear‑error meaning)
- In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (best‑interests burden and relevant factors to consider)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (2014) (factors for best‑interests analysis including parent history and children’s wellbeing)