In re VanDalen
293 Mich. App. 120
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- L. VanDalen sustained injuries at birth and subsequent years suggesting abuse; hospital and medical professionals diagnosed an inflicted fracture consistent with abuse.
- Respondents initially cooperated with services, but respondent-father failed to engage; respondent-mother separated from him and moved toward stability.
- L. VanDalen was removed and later returned to mother with services; the couple reunited without the caseworker’s knowledge, causing custody disputes.
- Respondents remained in a relationship; D. VanDalen was born in 2009 and developed normally until 2010 when developmental regressions and serious injuries appeared.
- In June 2010, D. VanDalen suffered life-threatening injuries consistent with shaken baby syndrome; medical evidence linked severe trauma to caretakers’ conduct or failure to protect.
- Petitioner sought permanent custody and termination; the trial court terminated parental rights after finding statutory grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process at adjudication instructions | Petitioner | Respondents | No reversible instructional error; jurisdiction valid under standard. |
| Due process in late-court evidence proceedings | Petitioner | Respondents | Court did not deprive due process by obtaining evidence post-trial; no plain error affecting substantial rights. |
| Sufficiency of grounds for termination | Petitioner | Respondents | Clear and convincing evidence supports MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j) based on severe, ongoing abuse. |
| Best interests of the children | Petitioner | Respondents | Termination in best interests given ongoing safety concerns and stability of foster placement. |
| Identity of perpetrator not required for termination | Petitioner | Respondents | Determinative identity not required; evidence shows abuse or failure to protect justifies termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re AMAC, 269 Mich App 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (due process considerations in family proceedings; statutory interpretation; safeguards)
- In re CR, 250 Mich App 185 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (due process and procedures in termination cases)
- Brock, 442 Mich 101 (Mich. 1993) (due process factors for procedural safeguards)
- MU, 264 Mich App 270 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (child welfare procedures and best interests standard)
- Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341 (Mich. 2000) (standard for termination and best interests; clear error review)
- In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) (clear and convincing evidence standard for termination)
- In re Hildebrant, 216 Mich App 384 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (preservation and plain-error review in termination contexts)
- Reed v Reed, 265 Mich App 131 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (meaningful opportunity to be heard in adjudicatory process)
- Carines, 460 Mich 750 (Mich. 1999) (plain-error analysis; substantial rights)
- In re SLH, 277 Mich App 662 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (collateral versus direct challenge to termination orders)