IN RE DARREN BUFFEN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DARREN BUFFEN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 16, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 287978
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 08-478169-NA
KOLOREAN KERSHAW,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ARIC BUFFEN,
Respondent.
In the Matter of DARREN BUFFEN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 287979
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 08-478169-NA
ARIC BUFFEN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KOLOREAN KERSHAW,
Respondent.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Meter and Servitto, JJ.
-1-
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court’s order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (g), (j),
(k)(iii), and, with regard to respondent father only, (l). We affirm. These appeals have been
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination of
respondents’ parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J);
In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989); MCL 712A.19b(3). Medical evidence
showed the two-month-old minor child suffered several fractured ribs on three different
occasions, a pulmonary hemorrhage, and a fractured tibia. In addition, his failure to thrive was a
chronic condition and he fell below the five-percentile mark in weight for children his age. A
medical doctor testified that his injuries were not accidental, but caused by abuse. Given the
severity of the injuries petitioner followed the legislative mandate in requesting termination of
parental rights at the initial disposition. MCL 722.638(1)(a)(iii), (a)(v), (b)(i), and (2). Petitioner
did not offer reunification services.
Respondents argue that the trial court clearly erred in finding sufficient evidence to
terminate their parental rights because there was no direct evidence showing they injured or had
the opportunity to prevent injury to the minor child. However, review of the record provides
ample circumstantial evidence supporting the trial court’s decision. Respondents resided
together with the minor child, and no other persons were present in the home or provided
childcare except the paternal grandmother, who was later deemed suitable for the child’s
placement after a background check and home study. Respondents were unable to explain how
the child sustained multiple serious injuries other than respondent mother’s moderate pressing on
the child’s abdomen to relieve gas. Respondent mother suffered from bipolar disorder, psychoschematic schizophrenia and postpartum depression, and did not resume a medication regime
after the child’s birth. Respondent father stated he was unaware of respondent mother’s mental
health issues even though she stopped taking medication during the pregnancy, and he later
became apprehensive about the child’s safety in her care but failed to take timely and sufficient
measures to prevent repetitious injury to the child. Neither respondent adequately addressed the
child’s malnutrition.
Given that the child was primarily in respondents’ care and respondents were unable to
explain several instances of multiple injuries and failed to notice the child’s injuries until he
suffered a life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage, the trial court did not err in finding sufficient
evidence to conclude, with respect to §§19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), and (k)(iii), that these subsections
applied to respondents. Further, respondents continued to reside together and previous parenting
classes had not helped respondent mother prevent the child’s abuse and neglect. Therefore, the
trial court did not err in finding under §§19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), and (j) that there was a reasonable
likelihood that the child would suffer injury or abuse in the foreseeable future if placed in
respondents’ home.
The abuse and neglect the child suffered clearly showed respondents’ failure to provide
proper care or custody. The legislature mandates petitioner to request termination in the event of
severe and life-threatening non-accidental injury, and that mandate justified petitioner’s refusal
-2-
to provide services. MCL 722.638(1) and (2). The trial court did not err in terminating
respondents’ parental rights under §19b(3)(g) because without extensive services there was no
reasonable likelihood they would, within a reasonable time, become able to provide the child
with proper care.
The trial court had terminated respondent father’s parental rights to another child in
October 1997, and the trial court took judicial notice of that order. The trial court need not have
relied upon the additional statutory ground in §19b(3)(l) because only one ground is needed to
terminate parental rights, but in light of the evidence that respondent did not have custody of his
three other children, was unemployed, and either perpetrated or failed to prevent this minor
child’s severe abuse, the court did not err in finding that respondent father had not substantially
improved his ability to parent since his prior termination.
Respondent father argues that the trial court erred in reviewing and relying on his
criminal records after the adjudication trial, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to refute
any inaccuracies in those records. The trial court stated its intent to review his criminal records
and respondent did not object. Therefore, he has not preserved that issue for review. Phinney v
Verbrugge, 222 Mich App 513, 544; 564 NW2d 532 (1997). Regardless, we note that with or
without evidence of respondent father’s criminal history, there was substantial evidence
supporting the termination of his parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
-3-
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.
