Court Of Appeals Reverses Trial Court’s Finding Of Aggravated Circumstances Based On Anticipatory Child Abuse
Opinion Published: September 8, 2025 (Ackerman, Kelly, O’Brien)
COA Docket No. 374236
Lenawee County Circuit Court
Holding: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s finding of aggravated circumstances because under MCL 722.638(1)(a), a court may bypass reunification and consider termination of parental rights at the outset only when a parent has already abused the child or the child’s sibling, not when there is anticipatory abuse or where the sibling is not biological.
Facts: Respondent has one biological daughter, KV, a stepdaughter, and three stepsons. Respondent lives in Indiana and his wife lives in Michigan. A CPS case was opened due to concerns that Respondent sexually abused KV and her stepsister, CG. CG alleged that Respondent had sexually abused her and she had witnessed Respondent sexually abuse KV. CG further reported her brothers also touched the girls inappropriately and Respondent’s wife was aware but did not intervene. Based on the allegations, DHHS petitioned for jurisdiction, removal, and termination of parental rights in July 2024.
A bench trial was held to determine jurisdiction over KV. CG testified regarding the allegations she brought forward to DHHS, but KV denied Respondent ever sexually abused her and expressed a desire to remain in contact and live with Respondent. The Court found CG’s allegations against Respondent credible but issued an unclear ruling. The Court established jurisdiction over KV, but did not clearly resolve whether aggravated circumstances existed to justify immediate termination. DHHS sought clarification and further argued aggravated circumstances applied because of the doctrine of anticipatory abuse and neglect.
Following the adjudication trial, the Court entered an order on the standard State Court Administrative Office Form JC 49, checking the box finding statutory grounds for jurisdiction but leaving blank both the space that identified which ground was proven and regarding aggravated circumstances. At dispositional hearing, the apparent shared understanding of the Court’s ruling on aggravated circumstances was that the Trial Court applied the anticipatory abuse and neglect doctrine. The Trial Court thereafter terminated Respondent’s parental rights to KV and Respondent appealed.
Key Appellate Rulings:
Even if not explicitly written, a trial court’s oral rulings can establish jurisdiction over a child.
Though typically a court speaks through written judgments and orders rather than oral statements, there are circumstances where oral rulings suffice. In this case, the transcript clarifies that the Trial Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent assaulted CG and it was therefore taking jurisdiction over KV. The Trial Court also added that jurisdiction was proper due to Respondent’s failure to protect KV from her stepbrothers. Therefore, the Trial Court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and its oral ruling adequately communicated that it had jurisdiction over KV.
MCL 722.638(1)(a) does not permit a court to rely on the doctrine of anticipatory neglect in finding aggravated circumstances.
Under MCL 722.638(1)(a), a court can terminate parental rights at initial disposition if a parent has abused the child or a sibling of the child. In this case, it was concluded that KV and CG do not qualify as siblings under the statute. DHHS also urged the Trial Court to rely on the doctrine of anticipatory neglect, which it did in finding the existence of aggravated circumstances. This doctrine recognizes that how a parent treats one child is probative of how they may treat other children.
The Court of Appeals notes that several grounds for termination are forward-looking; however, the language of MCL 722.638(1)(a) does not prescribe a forward-looking approach. The statute states that aggravated circumstances exist when a parent “has abused” a child or a child’s sibling. The Court notes that the verb tense is significant and requires actual proof of past abuse, therefore only recognizing a narrow form of anticipatory abuse. Because the children are not siblings and there was no proof of past abuse of KV, the statute does not allow a finding of aggravated circumstances in this instance.
