IN RE TAUCK/TAUCK-LEWIS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JOCELYN CIPRANA TAUCK,
STEPHAN TAUCK, AGNES TAUCK-LEWIS,
and CHARISMA TAUCK-LEWIS, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
August 19, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 282597
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-395233-NA
ANDREA TAUCK-LEWIS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHARLES BURNS, DANIEL PIFER, and
BRYAN LEWIS,
Respondents.
Before: Schuette, P.J., Zahra and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court’s initial order of disposition
exercising its jurisdiction over the minor children and placing them with petitioner for care and
supervision. We affirm.
Respondent-appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court lacked sufficient
evidence to exercise its jurisdiction over the children. We review “the trial court’s decision to
exercise jurisdiction for clear error in light of the court’s findings of fact.” In re BZ, 264 Mich
App 286, 295; 690 NW2d 505 (2004). “To properly exercise jurisdiction, the trial court must
find that a statutory basis for jurisdiction exists.” Id. “Jurisdiction must be established by a
preponderance of the evidence.” Id.
After reviewing the testimony during the trial on the adjudication, we find no clear error
in the trial court’s decision to exercise its jurisdiction over the children under MCL 712A.2(b)(1)
and (2). The testimony revealed that respondent-appellant left her young children, some of
whom had special medical needs, without proper supervision or custody, there was past domestic
-1-
violence in their home, she assaulted two of the children on one occasion, and she was unable to
provide independent housing for them. Considering these circumstances, we agree with the trial
court that a preponderance of the evidence established that respondent-appellant failed to provide
proper custody for the children and that her home was unfit by reason of neglect. MCL
712A.2(b)(1) and (2).
We recognize that respondent-appellant’s testimony, in many respects, contradicted the
testimony of the investigating caseworker as well as her son’s statements, which were admitted
into evidence as tender years testimony in accordance with MCR 3.972 (C)(2). However, we
must give regard to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the
witnesses who appeared before it. In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). It
was evident that the court found the child’s statements and the investigating worker’s testimony
to be credible, which was reasonable in light of the contradicting testimony as well as testimony
by the investigating worker, who was trained in forensic interviewing, that the child knew the
difference between the truth and a lie, was factual, and was not evasive. We, therefore, conclude
that the trial court did not clearly err in exercising jurisdiction over the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Bill Schuette
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
