IN RE JACOB MCNIEL MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JACOB MCNIEL, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 9, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255169
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-113770-NA
CHRISTOPHER M. MCNIEL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JANET WAGGONER,
Respondent.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Sawyer and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by right an order terminating his parental rights to the
minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that a statutory ground had been proven
by clear and convincing evidence or in its ruling regarding the best interests of the minor child.
MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). When this case first
came to the attention of Protective Services, the small apartment in which respondent-appellant
lived with his girlfriend and his two small children was so dirty and cluttered that it posed a
danger to the children. The children were placed in foster care, and after more than a year,
termination proceedings were instituted. In the interim, respondent-appellant underwent
psychological testing, completed parenting and anger management classes, maintained steady
employment and regularly visited his child. However, the condition of the apartment from which
the children had been removed remained essentially unchanged. Evidence from two
psychologists, Dr. Ruben and Dr. Sommerschield, as well as the testimony of FIA caseworkers
Howard and Weaver, showed that respondent-appellant suffered from a serious character
disorder, that he lacked impulse control, that his life was largely self-centered, and that he lacked
empathy for his children. While it is true that respondent-appellant did complete FIA-sponsored
programs in parenting and anger management and that he did visit the child regularly, it is also
-1-
true that he made no substantial progress toward resolving long-term problems. Further, the
condition of the small apartment where respondent-appellant and his long-term girlfriend lived
was a danger to children, and no effort to clean it had been made in the more than 2½ years this
case was pending. Given the time that had passed, there was no reasonable likelihood of change
in the situation.
The evidence also did not show that termination was not in the minor child’s best
interests. The apartment was too dangerous for any child to live, and given respondent
appellant’s defiant attitude, it was not necessary that the FIA continue to offer services where no
real progress had been made. Further, the trial court did not erroneously place a burden of proof
on respondent-appellant regarding the best interests of the child but considered “all the evidence”
presented to the court.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/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.
