IN RE MCKIBBEN/HAMSTRA/HAMSTRA-CHERRY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CHRISTINA MCKIBBEN,
SHEINAH HAMSTRA, and ANTHONY
HAMSTRA-CHERRY, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 13, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 248973
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-075200-NA
GLORIA HAMSTRA,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHASE CHERRY,
Respondent.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Murphy and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under 25 USC 1912(f) and MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g).
We affirm.
Respondent-appellant argues that the testimony of William Holmes, MSW, did not meet
the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requirement that the trial court's determination be
supported by the testimony of "qualified expert witnesses." 25 USC 1912(f). Respondentappellant makes this argument based on Mr. Holmes' testimony that he could not give an opinion
or recommendation on behalf of the tribe. Mr. Holmes is the Director of Social Services for the
Pokagon Band of the Potawatami Indian tribe. He was qualified as an expert in Indian child
welfare, without objection. Mr. Holmes opined that custody of the minor children by
respondent-appellant would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children.
Respondent-appellant argues that the trial court clearly erred in terminating her parental
rights because Mr. Holmes did not testify on behalf of the Pokagon Band. The ICWA does not
-1-
require that expert witnesses testify on behalf of a tribe or band. In the present case, Mr. Holmes
testified that the Pokagon Band had not finished setting up a commission to review and make
recommendations in termination cases. Thus, it would not have been possible to obtain the type
of testimony respondent-appellant seeks on appeal. Mr. Holmes was well qualified by education,
experience, and familiarity with the tribe to give expert testimony in this case. See In the Matter
of Kreft, 148 Mich App 682, 689-692; 348 NW2d 843 (1986). The testimony and reports of a
psychologist, Jeffrey Kieliszewski, Ph.D., also supported the trial court's determination. We find
no error.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.