Background
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services petitioned to terminate the respondent-father’s parental rights to his minor child, VAT, alleging that he had sexually and physically abused her when she was five to seven years old. VAT testified that respondent touched her chest, vaginal area, and buttocks over her clothing and that he punched, cut, and burned her, leaving a mark on her face and scars on her legs.
The Oakland Circuit Court found that it had jurisdiction over VAT, determined that aggravated circumstances excused the department from making reasonable efforts toward reunification, and terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and (j). It also found that termination was in VAT’s best interests. Respondent appealed each of those determinations.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that VAT’s testimony supported jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) because it showed that she faced a substantial risk of harm to her mental well-being. Her fear while living with respondent, difficulty testifying, participation in therapy, and reports of abuse to multiple people supplied the required preponderance of evidence.
The court also upheld the finding of aggravated circumstances under MCL 722.638(1)(a)(iii). Credited testimony that respondent punched VAT in the face, cut her, and burned her—leaving visible marks and scars—constituted clear and convincing evidence of abuse involving serious physical harm. The absence of medical records and some uncertainty in VAT’s description of how she was burned did not make the trial court’s finding clearly erroneous.
Finally, the court held that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and (j), and that a preponderance of the evidence showed termination was in VAT’s best interests. The trial court permissibly credited VAT over respondent, and a psychologist testified that reunification or continued contact would harm VAT’s precarious mental health. The trial court also expressly considered VAT’s placement with her mother and the risk that respondent could seek custody if his rights remained intact.
Key Takeaways
- A child’s credible testimony can establish jurisdiction, aggravated circumstances, and statutory grounds for termination even without corroborating medical records.
- Abuse involving punching, cutting, burning, and resulting marks or scars can qualify as serious physical harm and excuse reasonable reunification efforts.
- Appellate courts defer to a trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses and assess credibility unless its findings are clearly erroneous.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Michigan courts apply the two-part aggravated-circumstances inquiry after In re Barber/Espinoza: the evidence must show both child abuse by a listed offender and one of the circumstances enumerated in MCL 722.638(1)(a). Here, the child’s credited account of physical abuse satisfied both requirements.
The opinion also confirms that relative placement does not preclude termination. A court may terminate parental rights after expressly considering that placement when the evidence shows that leaving those rights intact would expose the child to continuing physical or emotional risk.