IN RE DEANTE' SPRINGER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DEANTE’ SPRINGER, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
September 16, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 283555
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-468419-NA
WILLIAM J. SPRINGER,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Bandstra and Donofrio, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent William Springer appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child.1 We affirm.
I. Basic Facts And Procedural History
In May 2007, petitioner filed an original permanent custody petition. This petition
alleged as follows: Springer is the father of Deante.2 In April 2007, Romulus police arrested
Springer for sexually assaulting his biological daughter and Deante’s half-sister, J.T. J.T. told
Sergeant Jeffrey Lazarski that she was suspended from school for arguing with classmates.
Springer yelled at her and said she could choose a “spanking” or a “hump” as her discipline. J.T.
explained that a “hump” is when Springer pulls down his pants and humps her. J.T. also
disclosed that Springer would squeeze her breasts and rub his bare penis between the cheeks of
1
MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) (parent’s act caused physical/sexual abuse of the child or the child’s
sibling and there is a reasonable likelihood that the child will suffer from injury/abuse in the
foreseeable future if placed with the parent), (g) (parent failed to provide proper care and
custody), (j) (reasonable likelihood that the child will be harmed if returned to the parent), and
(n)(i) (parent has been convicted of a crime under MCL 750.520c).
2
There is inconsistency in the lower court record regarding the correct spelling of the minor
child’s name. The lower court order appealed from spells it with an accent mark, as follows:
“Deante’.” However, consistent with the child’s birth certificate we will refer to him herein as
“Deante.”
-1-
her buttocks. This occurred at least 15 times between June 2006 and March 2007. Springer
admitted the conduct to police on videotape and in a written statement. However, Springer
insisted that he did it to educate J.T., not for sexual gratification. Springer stated that J.T. was
sexually active and that he wanted to show her how boys disrespect girls. Deante denied being
physically or sexually abused by Springer. Springer was arrested and charged with three counts
of criminal sexual conduct (CSC).
The permanent custody hearing was held in January 2008. Petitioner submitted two
exhibits into evidence indicating that Springer pleaded guilty to second-degree CSC.3
The trial court found that termination of Springer’s parental rights at the initial
disposition was justified based on MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (j), and (n)(i). The trial court
also found that there was not clear and convincing evidence to show that termination of
Springer’s parental rights was not in the children’s best interests.
II. Statutory Grounds For Termination
A. Standard Of Review
To terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that the petitioner has proven at
least one of the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.4 We review
for clear error a trial court’s decision terminating parental rights.5 A finding is clearly erroneous
if, although there is evidence to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been made.6 Regard is to be given to the special opportunity of the trial court
to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it.7
B. Analysis
There was clear and convincing evidence to terminate Springer’s parental rights pursuant
to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i). Springer sexually assaulted his daughter, Deante’s half-sister, and
was convicted of second-degree CSC, after he entered a guilty plea. Because Springer
perpetrated the sexual assault on his daughter, there is a reasonable likelihood that Deante, his
other minor child, will suffer abuse or injury in Springer’s care.
Termination of Springer’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j) was
also appropriate. In sexually abusing his daughter, Springer subjected her to physical and
emotional harm and demonstrated that he is unable to provide proper care for his children.
3
MCL 750.520c(1)(b).
4
MCL 712A.19b(3); In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 632-633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999).
5
MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 355-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); Sours,
supra at 633.
6
In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003).
7
MCR 2.613(c); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 455 NW2d 161 (1989).
-2-
Springer’s conduct reveals that he does not have an appropriate protective, paternal instinct
towards his children. His explanation, that he perpetrated the sexual assault in effort to educate
his daughter on how boys would disrespect her, shows that he has no sense of propriety and
demonstrated dangerous judgment. Because how a parent treats one child is probative of how a
parent may treat other children, Deante would be at risk in Springer’s care.8
Termination of Springer’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(n)(i) was also proper.
As indicated, Springer was convicted of second-degree CSC for sexually assaulting his daughter.
Termination of Springer’s parental rights to Deante is in the child’s best interest because
continuing the parent-child relationship with Springer would be harmful to Deante given the fact
that Springer perpetrated this crime on one of his other children who is Deante’s half sibling.
Springer argues that he was a positive force in Deante’s life and that he displayed no
neglectful or abusive conduct toward Deante. He argues that the statutory basis relied on for
termination of parental rights cannot be satisfied by merely pointing to the manner in which a
sibling was treated because there was no evidence that Springer’s actions caused physical or
sexual abuse to Deante. Springer’s argument is not consistent with case law, which recognizes
anticipatory neglect. Abuse of one child is probative of a parent’s proclivity to abuse other
children.9 The purpose of this doctrine is to protect children in advance of harm where there is a
likelihood of harm as opposed to waiting for the harm to occur. Deante could not safely be
returned to Springer’s care in light of past sexual abuse inflicted by Springer on his daughter.
We conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that statutory grounds for
termination of Springer’s parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence.
III. Best Interests Determination
A. Standard Of Review
Once a petitioner has established a statutory ground for termination by clear and
convincing evidence, the trial court shall order termination of parental rights, unless the trial
court finds from evidence on the whole record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best
interests.10 There is no specific burden on either party to present evidence of the children’s best
interests; rather, the trial court should weigh all evidence available.11 We review the trial court’s
decision regarding the child’s best interests for clear error.12
8
In re LaFlure, 48 Mich App 377, 392; 210 NW2d 482 (1973).
9
In re Parshall, 159 Mich App 683, 689; 406 NW2d 913 (1987); In re Youmans, 156 Mich App
679, 689; 401 NW2d 905 (1986); In re Dittrick Infant, 80 Mich App 219, 222; 263 NW2d 37
(1977); In re LaFlure, supra.
10
MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 350.
11
Trejo, supra at 354.
12
Id. at 356-357.
-3-
B. Analysis
Although Springer argues that he was bonded to Deante and was very involved in his
son’s life, Springer’s treatment of Deante’s half-sister demonstrates that he put his own desires
before the needs of his children and exercised dangerous parental judgment. We, therefore,
conclude that the evidence did not show that the children’s best interests precluded termination
of Springer’s parental rights.
In sum, we conclude that Springer’s parental rights were properly terminated.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-4-
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.
