Now Accepting New Clients!

A trial court properly terminated the parental rights of a mother and father where clear and convincing existed establishing the child sustained severe physical abuse

The trial court properly granted termination of the respondents-parents' parental rights to the child where the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence and it was in the child's best interests. They pleaded no contest to the statutory grounds §§ (b)(i), (b)(ii), (g), (j), & (k)(iii) and admitted to being the child's sole caretakers. Neither claimed that there was any irregularity as to the pleas. Thus, the argument that there was no clear and convincing evidence to support termination was contrary to the no contest pleas. Regardless, there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate their parental rights under the specified statutory grounds. Although the respondent-mother did not contest the statutory grounds on which the trial court terminated her parental rights, the respondent-father did. Nevertheless, the trial court properly terminated both of their parental rights. In Ellis, as in this case, the "child was not quite seven months old when she was taken to the hospital with life-threatening injuries." The child's treating doctor testified that the "child's injuries were caused by nonaccidental trauma and that it was evident from the various healing stages of her rib fractures that the injuries occurred in multiple episodes." Neither could explain the injuries. Also, in VanDalen, as in this case, the evidence showed that the "child suffered unexplained, life-threatening, nonaccidental injuries while in the sole care and custody of her parents. The child sustained brain and eye hemorrhages, eyelid bruising, and multiple rib fractures that were in various stages of healing, indicating that the harm was sustained over time and in multiple episodes." While it was unclear which respondent caused the injuries, it was clear that "both failed to safeguard her from abuse, and there was a substantial risk of future harm." Finally, the father argued that reasonable efforts to reunify the child with him were not made. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate respondents' parental rights under (k)(iii), which provides that the "parent abused the child or a sibling of the child and the abuse included '[b]attering, torture, or other severe physical abuse.'" Also, DHHS "'is not required to provide reunification services when termination of parental rights is the agency's goal.'" Termination was the DHHS's goal here. Thus, reunification efforts were not required. Affirmed. 

Holding that the trial court properly granted the defendants summary disposition under the GTLA as to the plaintiff's tort claims, that there was no question of fact as to whether they were unjustly enriched by collecting the fees at issue.

In 2012, plaintiff's then-wife filed for divorce and paid $230 in filing fees. He later filed a motion as to custody of his child in the divorce action, and paid an $80 FOC fee, collected by the clerk of the court pursuant to the former MCL...

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not commit clear legal error or infringe upon the defendant-mother's Second Amendment right when it considered her actions with her firearm in its findings and analysis under factor (l).

On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court committed clear legal error and violated her Second Amendment right by punishing her for lawful possession of a firearm in its analysis for best-interest factor (l). However, the trial court did not...

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by granting the defendant-putative father's motion to set aside a default judgment establishing his paternity of the plaintiff-mother's child on the ground that it lacked subject-matter jurisdictio

Plaintiff filed a paternity action claiming defendant was the father of her child. He was eventually served, but claimed the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The trial court disagreed and ordered a paternity test. When he failed to comply, it...

Holding that "the common-law affirmative defense of self-defense is available to a defendant charged with CCW for concealing an instrument which is a dangerous weapon only because it is used as a weapon," the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Ap

Defendant was arguing with his wife on the side of the road when two men pulled over. As the situation escalated, one of the men allegedly began choking defendant. Defendant pulled out a utility knife and held it in the air. The men got back in...

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err by awarding spousal support to the defendant-former husband, or by requiring the plaintiff-former wife to pay some of his attorney fees incurred in their divorce action.

The court rejected plaintiff's argument that the award of spousal support was unfair and inequitable under the circumstances. "Although the trial court imputed $35,000 to defendant in annual income," he was unemployed and needed "to secure and...

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not clearly err in concluding there was clear and convincing evidence to support terminating the respondent-mother's parental rights or that it was in the child's best interest to do so.

The case "had been pending for well over 182 days and was initiated" in 11/12 "because of respondent's mental health, improper supervision of the child, and inadequate housing. The goals identified for respondent through these proceedings included"...

The Court of Appeals held that the petitioner, as the decedent's sister, was an "interested person" and had standing to petition for the appointment of a special PR under MCL 700.3614(b) for the purpose of pursuing a wrongful death action.

The Court of Appeals rejected the respondent's claim that laches barred the petition, and concluded that she failed to establish plain error affecting her substantial rights as to her claims of lack of notice and a hearing. Further, she failed to...

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by finding the defendant-mother in criminal contempt of court for having the parties' child baptized without informing the plaintiff-father, and by requiring her to pay plaintiff $9,611 in damages,

Plaintiff alleged that defendant's secret baptism of the child and concealment of the baptism was in violation of their divorce judgment, which required their parent coordinator to decide disagreements in the event they could not agree. The trial...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000