IN RE WIECZOREK MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SEAN IAN WIECZOREK,
AMBER MARIE WIECZOREK, and JADE
DANIEL WIECZOREK, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 10, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 246167
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-048740
LEANNE McVEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TIMOTHY R. WIECZOREK, SR.,
Respondent.
In the Matter of SEAN IAN WIECZOREK,
AMBER MARIE WIECZOREK, and JADE
DANIEL WIECZOREK, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 247883
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-048740
TIMOTHY RAY WIECZOREK, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LEANNE MARIE McVEY,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Cooper, P.J., and O'Connell and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (g),
(j), and (k)(ii). We affirm.
In Docket No. 246167, respondent-mother argues that the trial court erred in admitting
the children’s hearsay statements under MCR 5.972(C)(2), now MCR 3.972(C)(2). We disagree.
We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion.
Ellsworth v Hotel Corp of America, 236 Mich App 185, 188; 600 NW2d 129 (1999).
The evidence that the statements were initiated by the children, rather than the therapists,
and that the therapists were careful not to ask leading or suggestive questions demonstrated that
the circumstances surrounding the giving of the statements provided adequate indicia of
reliability. MCR 5.972(C)(2). In addition, the evidence that both Sean and Amber made similar
statements to their therapists describing the abuse, that the children were acting out sexually, and
that they had sexual knowledge not expected of children their ages, tended to corroborate the
statements made to the therapists. Therefore, we do not believe the trial court abused its
discretion by admitting the children’s hearsay statements into evidence under MCR 5.972(C)(2).
In Docket No. 247883, contrary to respondent-father’s arguments, we conclude that the
trial court did not err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by
clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I), now MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The evidence that the children were sexually abused, considered in
conjunction with the evidence that respondent-father failed to attend sexual abuse counseling,
was sufficient to satisfy the statutory grounds for termination. Further, because at least one
ground for termination was established, the trial court was required to terminate respondentfather’s parental rights unless the trial court found that termination was not in the children’s best
interest. The trial court’s finding regarding the children’s best interests was not clearly
erroneous. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to the
children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
