In re Schadler
315 Mich. App. 406
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Respondent (father) appealed termination of his parental rights to children CS and BS under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (k)(ii), and (g) (CS only).
- CS (born 2009) reported respondent digitally penetrated her; forensic interviewer and sexual-assault nurse examiner corroborated with statements and medical findings consistent with penetration.
- BS is CS’s sibling; BS later entered a plea admitting to a CSC offense against CS and testified he had been exposed extensively to pornography by respondent.
- Evidence showed respondent used excessive physical discipline, domestic violence that frightened CS, and that BS suffered PTSD and feared being alone with respondent.
- Trial court found statutory grounds proved by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in both children’s best interests; respondent appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 712A.19b(3)(k)(ii) (CSC involving penetration) was proven for CS | CS’s statements and medical findings prove digital penetration | Lack of criminal charges shows innocence; respondent’s explanation | Held: Clear and convincing evidence supported finding of digital penetration; (k)(ii) established for CS |
| Whether same statutory grounds apply to BS as sibling | Sibling status and exposure justify termination under (k) and related grounds | Argued absence of charges undermines allegations | Held: BS is a sibling; (k) grounds apply as to BS (court did not need criminal conviction) |
| Whether termination was in CS’s best interests | Abuse and physical/emotional injury make termination necessary for safety and recovery | Respondent argued court failed to give weight to relative placement | Held: Termination in CS’s best interests — abuse, safety concerns, and inability to provide safe environment supported decision |
| Whether termination was in BS’s best interests | BS’s PTSD, fear of respondent, exposure to pornography, and damaged bond support termination | Respondent argued placement with BS’s biological mother was not considered or should weigh against termination | Held: Termination in BS’s best interests — therapist testimony, PTSD, fear, and unsafe parenting supported decision; mother was not a "relative" under statute so relative-placement rule did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (Court of Appeals) (single statutory ground plus best-interest finding supports termination)
- In re Ellis, 294 Mich. App. 30 (Court of Appeals) (standards for termination review)
- In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (Court of Appeals) (definition of sibling and standard of review)
- In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (Court of Appeals) (credibility and clear-error standard in termination cases)
- In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (Mich.) (trial court credibility deference under clear-error review)
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (Court of Appeals) (best-interest factors and consideration of relative placement)