IN RE CHANG MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JULIAN TOU SENG CHANG
and NOLAN CHER CHOU CHANG, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
April 3, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 280977
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-731317-NA
TANG YANG,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JASON NHIA CHANG,
Respondent.
In the Matter of JULIAN TOU SENG CHANG
and NOLAN CHER CHOU CHANG, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 280978
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-731317-NA
TANG YANG,
Respondent,
and
JASON NHIA CHANG,
Respondent-Appellant.
-1-
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Owens and Schuette, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from a circuit court order terminating their parental rights
to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (j), and (k). We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondents do not contest the trial court’s findings regarding jurisdiction or the
statutory bases for termination. They contend only that the trial court erred in finding that
termination was not clearly contrary to the children’s best interests. See MCL 712A.19b(5); In
re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We disagree.
The evidence showed that respondents’ newborn infant was subjected to horrific abuse
over a period of time. He had both healing fractures and fresh injuries. Respondent Yang
previously noticed bruises on her son and ignored them. Respondent Chang was alone with
Nolan immediately before he stopped breathing and became unresponsive. Respondents were
not able to offer a logical explanation for Nolan’s condition, and medical evidence indicated that
the injuries were intentionally inflicted, yet respondents steadfastly denied that anyone had
abused the child. Absent any other legitimate explanation for the child’s injuries, the injuries
themselves were a strong indication of abuse by respondents. In re Martin, 167 Mich App 715,
731; 423 NW2d 327 (1988). Considering that respondents caused or failed to protect their son
from prolonged serious abuse and expressed no intent to change anything in the environment in
which Nolan was injured, the trial court’s best interest findings were not clearly erroneous. In re
Trejo, supra at 356. The evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondents’ parental
rights was not in the children’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.
