IN RE BON/SPOELHOF/ARCHER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KATELYN BON, MATTHEW
SPOELHOF, MICHAEL ARCHER, and JESSICA
ARCHER, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
August 19, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 283467
Ottawa Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-056942-NA
JOANN MARIE ARCHER,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Schuette, P.J., Zahra and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights
to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) 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(E); In re Archer, 277 Mich App
71, 73; 744 NW2d 1 (2007). Respondent permitted her husband, Brian Archer, to sexually abuse
her oldest daughter for years and sometimes actively fostered the abuse. Once criminal
proceedings began and it became known that Archer had a prior conviction for sexually
molesting his own daughter from a prior relationship, respondent still supported him throughout
the criminal proceedings, posted his bond to obtain his release from jail, and instructed her
daughter to tell Archer’s criminal attorney that the allegations were false and to testify in
Archer’s defense. It was not until Archer was sentenced to life in prison that respondent
acknowledged that she had “made a mistake,” yet at the same time claimed that her failure to
stop the abuse was Archer’s fault because he had “brainwashed” her.
Further, the evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was not in the children’s best interests. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000);
MCL 712A.19b(5). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to
the children. In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
-1-
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.
