in Re S Cicerello Minor
338433
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Child SC (about 10) was placed with a maternal relative after concerns she had contracted an STD and after a safety plan was enacted.
- SC testified that respondent-father twice touched her ‘‘private part’’ by placing his penis on her vagina over clothing while they were in his bed.
- SC told respondent-mother about the abuse after she was living with the cousin; respondent-mother did not report it to law enforcement and expressed disbelief that father abused SC.
- Respondents offered inconsistent, unsubstantiated explanations for how SC acquired the STD and blamed third parties without corroboration.
- Respondent-mother had untreated mental-health disorders and refused to separate from respondent-father (citing inability to support herself), undermining her willingness/ability to protect and reunify.
- The trial court adjudicated jurisdiction, found statutory grounds for termination, and later terminated both parents’ rights; appeals followed and were consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent-father’s rights could be terminated under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) (parent-caused sexual abuse and foreseeable risk) | SC’s credible testimony and the unexplained STD established father’s sexual abuse and future risk | Father argued SC’s testimony was not credible and termination infringed his constitutional right to parent | Court held clear and convincing evidence supported termination under (b)(i); credibility determinations deferred to trial court |
| Whether respondent-mother’s rights could be terminated under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) (failure to prevent abuse) | Mother had opportunity to prevent/report abuse but failed to notify law enforcement and would not separate from father | Mother challenged sufficiency of grounds for termination | Court held mother’s failure to protect and refusal/denial supported termination under (b)(ii) |
| Whether other statutory grounds or additional grounds required analysis | Petitioner relied on multiple statutory grounds as alternatives | Respondents contended other grounds were not proved | Because at least one statutory ground was proved for each parent, court did not need to address alternate grounds |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests | Termination necessary given sexual abuse, mother’s refusal to protect, and parents’ denial and inability to reunify | Respondents argued termination was not in SC’s best interests | Court found by a preponderance termination was in SC’s best interests given safety concerns, lack of parental protection, and unlikelihood of reunification |
Key Cases Cited
- In re BZ, 264 Mich. App. 286 (2004) (standard of review for clear and convincing evidence in termination proceedings)
- In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (2000) (best-interest burden and constitutional considerations in termination cases)
- In re Gonzales/Martinez, 310 Mich. 426 (2015) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (need not address additional statutory grounds when one ground is proven)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (2013) (preponderance standard for best-interest determinations)