From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Valliere

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
Jan 19, 2017
No. 333269 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2017)

Opinion

No. 333269

01-19-2017

In re A. VALLIERE, Minor.


UNPUBLISHED Jackson Circuit Court Family Division
LC No. 14-001658-NA Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and STEPHENS and O'BRIEN, JJ. PER CURIAM.

Respondent appeals as of right the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to the minor child AV under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). Because the trial court did not clearly err in finding statutory grounds to terminate respondent's parental rights, we affirm.

I. BASIC FACTS

On June 20, 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services discovered that respondent's daughter KW, who was approximately 3 years old, had numerous bruises on her head, face, back, and extremities. At that time, KW was in the care of respondent and his girlfriend. In forensic interviews, KW stated that respondent beat her, and medical evaluations showed that her injuries were indicative of physical abuse. Police took KW into protective custody, and AV was removed from respondent's care as well because the trial court found that it was contrary to his welfare to remain with respondent in light of the alleged abuse of KW.

The trial court took jurisdiction over AV with regard to respondent after a jury found that one or more of the allegations in the Department's petition were proven. Respondent was referred to numerous services, and his participation was satisfactory. He began having unsupervised visits with AV in May 2015. However, in June 2015, the Department received notice that another minor child of respondent's had been injured while in the care of respondent and his girlfriend. Moreover, although respondent was allowed to have supervised visits with AV upon request, he did not visit with AV from June 2015 until August 2015. In August and September 2015, respondent had three supervised visits with AV, but AV began to complain to his foster parents, therapist, and to others that respondent cut him and hurt him severely. AV's behavior became poor. He threw tantrums and stated that he did not want to visit respondent. However, AV's behavior improved after the trial court suspended respondent's visits with him.

In January 2016, the Department filed a supplemental petition seeking termination of respondent's parental rights. After a termination hearing on the petition, the trial court terminated respondent's parental rights.

The trial court also terminated the parental rights of AV's mother, who is not a party to this appeal.

II. STATUTORY GROUNDS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Respondent argues that the trial court clearly erred in terminating his parental rights to AV. "In order to terminate parental rights, the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been met." In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120, 139; 809 NW2d 412 (2011). This Court reviews the trial court's determination of statutory grounds for clear error. Id.; MCR 3.977(K).

B. ANALYSIS

Termination of parental rights is proper under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) if:

(c) The parent was a respondent in a proceeding brought under this chapter, 182 or more days have elapsed since the issuance of an initial dispositional order, and the court, by clear and convincing evidence, finds either of the following:

(i) The conditions that led to the adjudication continue to exist and there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions will be rectified within a reasonable time considering the child's age.
Here, the initial dispositional order was issued on December 29, 2014. The termination hearing was held on May 5, 2016. Thus, more than 182 days elapsed since the initial dispositional order was issued. One of the conditions leading to adjudication was that AV was at risk of harm because of physical abuse, and the trial court found that termination of respondent's parental rights was proper under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) because of his failure to rectify his problem with physical abuse. Respondent argues that there were no allegations that he physically abused AV and that the trial court terminated his rights solely based on evidence that other minor children were abused. However, AV reported on multiple occasions in 2015 that respondent injured him severely. Further, despite respondent's participation in services throughout the proceedings, the evidence shows that he inflicted physical abuse on AV during unsupervised visits. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that respondent failed to rectify his issue regarding physical abuse. Nor did the trial court err in finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that respondent would rectify that issue in a reasonable time.

Citing In re LaFrance Minors, 306 Mich App 713; 858 NW2d 143 (2014), respondent argues that evidence of abuse of the other minor children cannot be used as evidence that AV would be at risk in his custody. In In re LaFrance Minors, the trial court terminated the parents' rights to four minor children after the father failed to provide timely emergency medical care to the youngest child, who was an infant at the time of the neglect. Id. at 714-716, 721-722. In terminating the rights to the three older children, the trial court relied on the doctrine of anticipatory neglect, which provides that " '[h]ow a parent treats one child is certainly probative of how that parent may treat other children.' " Id. at 730, quoting In the Matter of LaFlure, 48 Mich App 377, 392; 210 NW2d 482 (1973). However, this Court noted that there was no evidence that the parents had ever neglected the three older children. In re LaFrance Minors, 306 Mich App at 730-731. This Court further noted that "the ages and medical conditions of the three older children stand in sharp contrast to that of the youngest child." Id. at 730. The youngest child had special medical needs, whereas the three older children did not. Id. This Court stated that "[w]hile anticipatory neglect can militate in favor of termination, under the unusual circumstances of this case, the doctrine has little bearing." Id. Because there was no indication that the parents had ever neglected the three older children, and because the older children did not have the same vulnerabilities and needs as did the youngest child, this Court held that the trial court clearly erred in terminating the parents' rights to the three older children. Id. at 730-732. Here, given that there was evidence that respondent physically abused AV, there was no need for the trial court to rely on the doctrine of anticipatory neglect. Thus, the holding in In re LaFrance is inapposite to this case.

Respondent argues that the termination decision was improper because he was employed, he did not abuse drugs, he had housing, and his interaction with AV during supervised visits was appropriate. The trial court, however, did not base its decision on those facts. Instead, the court found that AV would be at risk of harm if returned to respondent because of respondent's issue with physical abuse.

Because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support termination of respondent's parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), we need not address whether the trial court clearly erred in finding statutory grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). See In re HRC, 286 Mich App 444, 461; 781 NW2d 105 (2009). --------

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael J. Kelly

/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens

/s/ Colleen A. O'Brien


Summaries of

In re Valliere

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
Jan 19, 2017
No. 333269 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2017)
Case details for

In re Valliere

Case Details

Full title:In re A. VALLIERE, Minor.

Court:STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Jan 19, 2017

Citations

No. 333269 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2017)