IN RE DANIELLE PITTAO MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DANIELLE BREANA PITTAO,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 18, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 228163
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-604706-NA
DANIEL PITTAO,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: White, P.J., and Cavanagh and Talbot, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the family court order terminating his parental rights
to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (j) and (k)(iii); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), (j) and (k)(iii). We affirm.
The family court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent’s claim that, during the proceedings, he was
essentially on trial for the murder of his wife is unpersuasive. In its findings, the trial court
specifically indicated that it did not consider respondent’s wife’s murder. Moreover, the court
indicated in detail the factors on which it relied, including respondent’s failure to address his
substance abuse and domestic violence issues, his lack of credibility, and his failure to comply
with the case treatment plan. Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5); Trejo, supra at 354.
We reject respondent’s claim that the trial judge should have disqualified himself because
he was biased and predisposed in his rulings. We review the denial of a motion for
disqualification for an abuse of discretion. People v Wells, 238 Mich App 383, 391; 605 NW2d
374 (1999). Absent actual personal bias or prejudice, a judge will not be disqualified. MCR
2.003(B)(1); Cain v Dep't of Corrections, 451 Mich 470, 495; 548 NW2d 210 (1996). A judge’s
-1-
opinions that are formed on the basis of facts introduced or events that occur during the
proceedings do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deepseated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Id. at 496, citing
Liteky v United States, 510 US 540, 555; 114 S Ct 1147; 127 L Ed 2d 474 (1994). Judicial
rulings alone rarely establish disqualifying bias or prejudice. Cain, supra. Further, a party who
challenges a judge for bias must overcome a heavy presumption of judicial impartiality. Id. at
497. Here, the record fails to show actual bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge.
Finally, we decline to address respondent’s remaining claims challenging the family
court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the minor. A family court’s exercise of jurisdiction in
parental rights cases can be challenged only on direct appeal, not by collateral attack. In re
Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 439, 444; 505 NW2d 834 (1993); In re Powers, 208 Mich App 582,
587; 528 NW2d 799 (1995). Therefore, respondent may not challenge the family court’s
exercise of jurisdiction in this appeal from the termination order. Hatcher, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
