IN RE RINGEWOLD MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALANNA RINGEWOLD and
COLIN RINGEWOLD, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 20, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 263058
Ottawa Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-050018-NA
JESSICA MARIE RINGEWOLD,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
AARON DAVID RINGEWOLD,
Respondent.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Saad and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the order terminating her parental rights to
the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) and (g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination had
been established by clear and convincing evidence, MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000), or in its best interests determination. Id. at 353. Testimony
established that the children’s father, respondent-appellant’s husband, inappropriately touched
Alanna when they showered together and also made the child touch him in a sexual manner.
Respondent-appellant knew that her husband showered with the child and was often present in
the home when this occurred. Such testimony, along with evidence that respondent-appellant
knew her husband was “obsessed” with pornography and that he had taken inappropriate pictures
of a minor girl, support the trial court’s findings that there were signs of the father’s deviant
sexual behavior and that respondent-appellant had the opportunity to prevent the sexual abuse of
her daughter, but failed to do so. The trial court also appropriately found that there was a
reasonable likelihood that the child would suffer further abuse if placed in respondent-appellant’s
home based on her past conduct of staying with the children’s father and leaving the children in
his care despite her knowledge of his behavior. As the trial court noted, given her “extreme
-1-
inattention, or even the willful blindness to what was going on around her, and the effect it was
having on her children, there’s no reason . . . to believe that this would not happen again in the
foreseeable future, if her children were returned to her care.” Respondent-appellant argues that
the trial court erred by failing to take into account that she was divorcing her husband, and
therefore there was no likelihood of further abuse. However, testimony suggested that the parties
did not intend to obtain a divorce but rather were stating their intention to divorce so that
respondent-appellant’s parental rights would not be terminated. We give due regard to the trial
court’s special opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility, In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989), and find that the court did not clearly err.
Respondent-appellant also briefly argues that she was never given an opportunity to
prove that she could be a “good” parent without the negative influence of the children’s father.
However, this argument lacks merit because of the conflicting testimony regarding the parties’
intention to divorce and because there was testimony that respondent-appellant stayed with the
children’s father at his residence before trial.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Henry William Saad
/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.
