IN RE LEGENDE GREENE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LEGENDE GREENE, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 19, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 292404
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 08-479580-NA
KEVIN GREENE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LINDA HUNT,
Respondent.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and O’Connell and Davis, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Kevin Greene appeals by leave granted the adjudicative order that made the
minor child a temporary ward, pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b). We affirm. This appeal has been
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court properly asserted jurisdiction over the minor child. To properly exercise
jurisdiction, the trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that a statutory basis for
jurisdiction exists. In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286, 295; 690 NW2d 505 (2004). Under the
doctrine of anticipatory neglect, a child may come within the jurisdiction of the court based
solely on a parent’s treatment of another child, and application of the doctrine is not limited to
situations where a parent abuses his own child. In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 680; 692
NW2d 708 (2005), superseded in part on other grounds In re Hansen, ___ Mich App ___; ___
NW2d ___ (Docket No. 289903, issued July 21, 2009), slip op at 3-4; In re Powers, 208 Mich
App 582, 588, 591-592; 528 NW2d 799 (1995), superseded in part on other grounds In re Jenks,
281 Mich App 514, 517-518 n 2; 760 NW2d 514 (2008). The minor child’s older half-sister
testified that respondent repeatedly sexually and physically abused her over a number of years.
Although respondent claims that the minor child’s half-sister was not credible or worthy of
belief, this Court defers to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the
-1-
witnesses who appeared before it. MCR 2.613(C); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d
161 (1989).
Respondent also argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Despite
her occasional unprofessional behavior, respondent’s counsel forcefully cross-examined
witnesses and was able to set forth her theory of the case without actually calling any witnesses
of her own. Counsel elicited from the Protective Services investigator that she did not consult
anyone at school or look at the older half-sibling’s medical records, instead relying solely on her
allegations. Counsel then vigorously cross-examined the older half-sibling and revealed that she
was experiencing problems with school and her friends and had a history of acting out behavior
in an effort to obtain attention. Counsel pointed out the lack of evidence that the older halfsibling actually attempted suicide and that her toxicology report the day following the alleged
attempt was negative for substances. Counsel used the evidence to argue that the older halfsibling’s claim of sexual abuse, like her claim of attempted suicide, was merely an attempt to get
attention. Although counsel dramatically refused to continue questioning witnesses after a
confrontation with the judge, it is clear from the record that her theory of the case was not
compromised. This case hinged on the trial court’s credibility assessment. There was nothing
that counsel could have done differently that would have changed the outcome, and therefore
respondent was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. In re CR, 250 Mich App 185,
198; 646 NW2d 506 (2002).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/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.
