IN RE BRANDON KINSMAN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MATTHEW KINSMAN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 20, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 264082
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-000003-NA
KIRSTEN KINSMAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ROGER KINSMAN,
Respondent.
In the Matter of BRANDON KINSMAN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 264084
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-000002-NA
KIRSTEN KINSMAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ROGER KINSMAN,
Respondent.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Saad and Fort Hood, JJ.
-1-
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent-appellant Kirsten Kinsman appeals by right
from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (j), and (k)(ii). We affirm. These appeals are being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Because respondent-appellant entered a no-contest plea to the allegations that she had
repeatedly sexually molested her children, the only issue before the trial court and on appeal is
whether, despite the grounds for termination, there was evidence that termination would not be in
the children’s best interests. Once the trial court finds at least one statutory ground for
termination by clear and convincing evidence, the court must order termination of parental rights
unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The trial court’s decision
regarding a child’s best interests is reviewed for clear error. MCR 3.977(J); Trejo, supra at 356357.
We have carefully reviewed the lower court record and hold that the trial court did not
clearly err in finding that there was no evidence that the children’s best interests precluded
termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights. The trial court gave careful consideration
to testimony from the evaluating psychologist, two social workers, a family therapist, and others
to determine that the evidence established that respondent-appellant had not adequately
addressed her dependent personality disorder and would not be able to do so within a reasonable
time. As a result, the children, if returned to her care, would be at risk of further harm.
Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in ordering termination of respondent-appellant’s
parental rights to the children.
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.
