IN RE TIFFANY ANDERSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of T.A., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 31, 2000
Petitioner -Appellee,
v
Nos. 226874, 227232
Dickinson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-501-NA
DOROTHY WILLEY,
Respondent -Appellant,
and
TIMOTHY MUTZ,
Respondent -Appellant.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Kelly and Hoekstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from the family court order terminating their parental rights to the
minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b) (c), (g) and (j). We
affirm.
Respondent Timothy Mutz was convicted of criminal sexual conduct involving a six-year-old
child after admitting to the police that “somehow [the child victim and respondent Mutz] started touching
each other’s private parts. . . by private parts I mean my penis and her vagina.” The family court did
not err in concluding that respondent Mutz was not a suitable custodian for the minor child and that, in
light of his anticipated imprisonment, he could not provide proper care and custody for the child within a
reasonable time.
Respondent Dorothy Willey married Brian Willey, a convicted child sex offender and, when told
that the minor child could be returned if respondent stayed in Michigan and ceased contact with Brian
-1
Willey, respondent moved to Wisconsin to be with him. Respondent Willey made it clear that she is
unwilling to eliminate Brian Willey from her life and that his needs come before the child’s needs. She
was unable to recognize that her husband, a pedophile with anger management problems, presented a
hazard to the minor child.
The family court did not clearly err in finding that statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593
NW2d 520 (1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, respondents
failed to show that termination of their parental rights was not in the best interest of the child. MCL
712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.10b)(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
