Background
Father pleaded no contest in 1997 to two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct after sexually abusing his biological daughter DD when she was approximately 11 years old, resulting in three pregnancies. He was imprisoned for 12 years and required to register as a sex offender. After his release, father married respondent-mother and had two children with her: DB and AB. The parents divorced in 2016 after mother discovered father’s sexual abuse convictions and history. In May 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services filed a child protective petition alleging that mother could not provide proper care due to an unsafe home and inability to meet basic needs, and that father posed a risk to the children based on his prior sexual abuse of DD, who was a similar age to DB and AB at the time of the petition.
At the preliminary hearing, the court ordered the children to remain with mother but made father’s parenting time discretionary with the DHHS. One month later, after mother repeatedly allowed father unsupervised contact with the children in violation of the safety plan and failed to meet the children’s basic needs despite extensive services, the court removed the children and placed them in DHHS foster care with supervised parenting time for both parents. At the adjudication trial, evidence showed father’s 1997 convictions, that the foster care provider witnessed him beat DB and AB with a belt, and that DB disclosed forced showering and physical beatings. Father acknowledged his CSC-III convictions but testified he was a “born again Christian.”
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s removal and placement order. The court held that the trial court properly made all required factual findings under Michigan statutory and court rule requirements and that those findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, the court found that custody with father posed a substantial risk of harm to the children’s physical health and mental well-being, no alternative services or arrangements could adequately safeguard the children, removal was contrary to their welfare, reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal (or were not required given father’s status as a registered sex offender), and foster care conditions were adequate.
The court applied the doctrine of anticipatory neglect, which recognizes that how a parent treats one child is probative of how that parent may treat other children. The court found this inference particularly strong because father’s sexual abuse of DD began when she was approximately the same age as DB and AB were at the time the petition was filed. The court also found that father’s refusal to complete mandated psychological and sex offender assessments, combined with his prior convictions and the children’s behavioral trauma (nightmares attributed to past abuse), supported the conclusion that return would pose a substantial risk of harm.
Regarding father’s evidentiary challenges, the court held that father waived appellate review of his objections to the admission of his conviction record and competency evaluation by affirmatively stating he had “no objection” to their admission at trial. As to caseworkers’ testimony about the convictions, the court found any hearsay error harmless because father’s own trial testimony acknowledged the CSC-III convictions and DD as the victim. The court declined to address father’s jurisdictional challenge to MCL 712A.2(b)(2) because he failed to challenge the independent jurisdictional basis under MCL 712A.2(b)(1), which alone was sufficient to support the court’s jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- The anticipatory neglect doctrine is a valid framework in Michigan child protective proceedings: a parent’s treatment of one child is probative evidence of how they may treat other children, particularly when the prior victim was the same age as the current children.
- Waiving evidentiary objections at trial by stating “no objection” constitutes waiver of appellate review on those issues and precludes reversal based on claimed evidentiary error.
- A registered sex offender’s prior abuse conviction, when the victim was a similar age to the current children at issue, creates substantial presumption of risk without requiring completion of subsequent psychological evaluations.
- A child’s post-traumatic symptoms (nightmares, disclosed physical and sexual abuse) resulting from prior parental conduct support suspension of parenting time even during supervised visits.
Why It Matters
This decision strengthens child protective practitioners’ ability to use anticipatory neglect doctrine when a parent has a history of sexually abusing a child of similar age to the children currently at issue. The court’s clear endorsement of this framework—amplified by the parallel ages—provides guidance that removal need not wait for new abuse to occur when prior conduct with a similarly-situated child creates demonstrable risk. The decision also reinforces the importance of trial-level objections and complete appellate arguments; father’s failure to challenge the independent jurisdictional basis under subsection (1) rendered his challenge to subsection (2) legally irrelevant, even if meritorious.
For family law practitioners, the decision illustrates that non-compliance with mandatory assessments (psychological evaluation, sex offender assessment) strengthens the finding that return poses substantial risk, particularly when combined with documented prior abuse and child trauma. Courts need not wait for assessments to be completed when other evidence of risk is substantial. The decision also clarifies that a child’s behavioral manifestations of prior abuse—here, nightmares attributed to forced showering and beatings—are admissible and relevant to determining whether continued contact causes mental harm warranting suspension of parenting time.