Juvenile Review Menu
REQUIRING A CSC OFFENDER WHO HAS HAD HIS CONVICTION SET ASIDE UNDER MICHIGAN’S SETTING ASIDE CONVICTIONS ACT (SACA) TO CONTINUE TO BE SUBJECT TO MICHIGAN’S SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY DOES NOT VIOLATE EITHER THAT PERSON’S SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS
John Does II & III v. Munoz, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals # 06-2498, 11/13/07
HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY TWO CHILDREN WERE PROPERLY ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE DURING THE MCR 3.972(C)(2) HEARING HELD BEFORE THE ADJUDICATION, AND THE ADMISSION OF THOSE STATEMENTS DID NOT VIOLATE MCL 712A.17b(5). FURTHERMORE, THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS PROVIDED ADEQUATE INDICIA OF THEIR TRUSTWORTHINESS.
In the Matter of Joie Archer, Andrew Nierescher II and Cheyenne Nierescher, Minors; Department of Human Services v Jenny Nierescher and Andrew Nierescher, __ Mich App __,(2007), #275650 & 275651, 10/23/07
A COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS WHEN THE RESPONDENT IS NOT PROPERLY SERVED WITH NOTICE OF THE INITIAL PETITION AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS LEADING UP TO AND INCLUDING THE TERMINATION PETITION
In the Matter of Mariah Darlene Lemond and Michael Lemond, Minors; Department of Human Services v Michael Lemond, (#274978, Unpublished) Michigan Court of Appeals, July 26, 2007
A COURT’S MAY DISQUALIFY A PROSECUTOR FROM TRYING A CASE WHEN THAT PROSECUTOR TOOK A LEAD ROLE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE BY CONDUCTING A FORENSIC INTERVIEW OF THE ALLEGED CHILD VICTIM BEFORE AUTHORIZING CHARGES AGAINST THE DEFENDANT
People v. Daniel Sanford Tesen, ___ Mich App ___, #275401, 6/26/07
A TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED ON MCL 712A.19b(3)(d) IS APPROPRIATE IF THE PARENT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH A LIMITED GUARDIANSHIP PLACEMENT PLAN WHILE IT REMAINED IN EFFECT EVEN THOUGH THE PLAN’S TERM ENDED SOME 5 YEARS BEFORE TERMINATION WAS REQUESTED UNDER MCL 712A.19b(3)(d)
Furlong v. Brandenburg, (Unpublished #273963), May 10, 2007
THE DECISION MADE IN A CHILD PROTECTION PROCEEDING THAT A CHILD IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF HIS MOTHER’S MARRIAGE IS AN ADEQUATE ‘PRIOR DETERMINATION’ SUFFICIENT TO AFFORD THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER STANDING TO ESTABLISH HIS RIGHTS TO A CHILD UNDER THE MICHIGAN PATERNITY ACT
Badgley v. Cullen & DHS, (Unpublished #264614), May 10, 2007
AN INDIVIDUAL HAS NO STANDING AS A PUTATIVE FATHER TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY OF A MINOR CHILD IF THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF THE MINOR CHILD’S LEGAL FATHER WERE PREVIOUSLY TERMINATED
Douglas Voris v Department of Human Services, (#273255, Unpublished) Michigan Court of Appeals, April 19, 2007
A PETITION ALLEGING THAT A FATHER SEXUALLY ABUSED AN UNRELATED MINOR CHILD CONTAINS A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE COURT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION UNDER MCL 712A.2(b)(1) BECAUSE THE PARENT’S ALLEGED CONDUCT SUBJECTED THE MINOR CHILDREN TO A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM TO THEIR EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING THAT WAS NOT ELIMINATED BY. THE MINOR CHILDREN’S PLACEMENT WITH THEIR MOTHER AND A COURT ORDER SUSPENDING THE FATHER’S PARENTING TIME
In the Matter of Trevor Helgemo, Zachary Helgemo, Alyssa Helgemo, and Desiree Helgemo, Minors; Department of Human Services v Donald Wayne Helgeno, (#271047, Unpublished) Michigan Court of Appeals, April 17, 2007
A COURT PROPERLY DENIED FURTHER INQUIRY INTO THE RESPONDENTS’ UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS THAT THE MINOR CHILDREN WERE OF INDIAN HERITAGE WHEN THE CLAIMS WERE NOT PRESENTED UNTIL THE TERMINATION HEARING AND THE COURT SATISFIED ITS DUTY TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF TRIBAL AFFILIATION AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS INVOLVING THE MINOR CHILDREN. FURTHERMORE, ANY ERROR THAT OCCURRED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT ADMITTED A MINOR CHILD’S HEARSAY STATEMENTS AT TRIAL WITHOUT A “TENDER YEARS” HEARING PURSUANT TO MCR 3.972(C) WAS HARMLESS, BECAUSE THE STATEMENTS DID NOT CONTAIN NEW OR DIFFERENT ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF BOTH RESPONDENTS’ PARENTAL RIGHTS.Top of Page
In the Matter of Suave Alexander Stephens, Zavonte Martell Stevens, and Raymoni Love Sturgis, Minors, (#271015 & 271016, Unpublished) Michigan Court of Appeals, March 29, 2007
MRE 803A ALLOWS CORROBORATIVE TESTIMONY ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT MIRRORS TESTIMONY GIVEN BY THE CHILD DECLARANT DURING THAT SAME PROCEEDING. A CHILD’S STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN AN OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE BUSINESS (MEDICAL) RECORD MUST ALSO MEET THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION OF MRE 803(4) AS BEING MADE FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT AND DEEMED RELIABLE UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
In re: Thomas (People v. Thomas), (Unpublished #264549), March 22, 2007
THE APPEAL OF THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION TO PLACE A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY MATTER ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS OPPOSED TO THE FORMAL CALENDAR BECOMES MOOT WHEN THE RESPONDENT JUVENILE TURNS 19 BECAUSE THE COURT LOOSES JURISDICTION AT THAT TIME
In re: Dubow, (Unpublished #265642), March 15, 2007
A TRIAL COURT’S RELIANCE ON A SUBSECTION OF MCL 712A.19B(3) THAT IS SPECIFIC IN NATURE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE COURT FROM CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RELYING ON THE GENERAL LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). THEREFORE, A TRIAL COURT CAN RELY ON MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) AND (h) AS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF AN INCARCERATED RESPONDENT’S PARENTAL RIGHTS
In the Matter of Jacob Allen Ydrogo, (#270568, Unpublished) Michigan Court of Appeals, 1/25/07
Return to Calhoun County Courts Home Page
Last updated 3-2-07
Send your comments, questions and suggestions to Phil Harter at 161
E Michigan Avenue, Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
or e mail to pharter@calhouncountymi.gov