IN RE CHURCH MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ASHLEY CHURCH and ROGER
CHURCH, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 6, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 278429
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2006-000127-NA
ROGER CHURCH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CLARISSA CHURCH,
Respondent.
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Borrello and Gleicher, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights
to his daughter (DOB 4-25-91) and his son (DOB 6-22-96) pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(k)(ii)
(parent abused child or sibling of child and the abuse included criminal sexual conduct involving
penetration, attempted penetration, or assault with intent to penetrate).1 For the reasons set forth
in this opinion, we affirm.
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). A finding is clearly erroneous
when we are left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake was made. In re JK, 468
Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). To be clearly erroneous, a decision must be more
1
The trial court did not terminate the parental rights of respondent Clarissa Church, the
children’s mother.
-1-
than maybe or probably wrong. Sours, supra. If the trial court determines that the petitioner has
proven by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or more statutory grounds for
termination, the court must terminate parental rights unless it finds from evidence on the whole
record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo,
462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review the trial court’s decision regarding
the child’s best interests for clear error. Id. at 356-357.
We affirm the order terminating respondent’s parental rights. The undisputed evidence
established that respondent engaged in sexual penetration with his daughter, and posted
pornographic pictures of her on the Internet.2 Moreover, respondent’s assertion that termination
of his parental rights was not in the children’s best interests because the termination would result
in the elimination or reduction of the benefits the children received as a result of his status as a
disabled veteran is without merit. No witness could testify with certainty as to the amount by
which the benefits would or might be reduced if respondent’s parental rights were terminated.
Moreover, other evidence, including results of psychological evaluations of the children,
established that the children needed finality in the form of elimination of contact with
respondent. The trial court’s conclusion that the evidence did not show that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests was not clearly
erroneous. MCL 712A.19b(5).
Affirmed.
/s/ Bill Schuette
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
2
Respondent pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, MCL
750.520b, and one count of child sexually abusive material, MCL 750.145c(2). Respondent was
sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 11 years, three months to 40 years and six years, three
months to 20 years for these offenses.
-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.
