IN RE ALEXANDRA MICHELLE MOMANY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALEXANDRA MICHELLE
MOMANY, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
July 10, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 283561
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-726917-NA
DANYAIL ANN SCHULTZ,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Owens, P.J., and O’Connell and Davis, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from an order terminating her parental rights to the minor
child pursuant to 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The child testified regarding an ongoing history of physical
abuse, which was corroborated by her brother’s testimony. Their testimony clearly demonstrated
that respondent physically abused both children. Although respondent denied engaging in any
abuse, the trial court obviously rejected her testimony as not credible. This Court defers to the
trial court’s determination of credibility, given its superior opportunity and ability to judge the
witnesses’ appearance and demeanor. In re LE, 278 Mich App 1, 18; 747 NW2d 883 (2008);
Sparling Plastic Industries, Inc. v Sparling, 229 Mich App 704, 716; 583 NW2d 232 (1998).
Further, respondent’s refusal to recognize or acknowledge that she abused the children made it
reasonably likely that the child would be abused in the future if returned to respondent’s home,
particularly considering the special parenting challenges presented by the child.
Further, the evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 354. Respondent’s
continued denials of abuse, in addition to her attempts to obstruct both Tennessee and Michigan
investigations of her children, her continued refusal to obey the no-contact order issued in
Tennessee by allowing her husband to have contact with the child, and her continued claims that
it was her 13-year-old son who had raped her husband and not the other way around, make it
unrealistic that the child would be safe with respondent. The psychiatrist offered by respondent
-1-
even testified that a parent’s refusal to accept responsibility for her actions meant a poor
prognosis for a relationship with the child. The child was entitled to a safe home life,
permanence, and stability. Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s
parental rights to the child. Id. at 356-357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-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.
