IN RE TREECE/ALLEN MINORS (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED March 29, 2016 In re TREECE/ALLEN, Minors. No. 328684 Macomb Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 2013-000480-NA Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and JANSEN and STEPHENS, JJ. RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J. (concurring). I concur in the result reached by the majority and, with one exception, I also concur in the majority’s reasoning. I respectfully disagree that, under the circumstances of this specific case and on this particular record, the domestic violence perpetrated on respondent was a proper basis for terminating respondent’s parental rights. Nevertheless, I agree that termination was proper for the remaining reasons as set forth by the majority. This was a situation in which respondent was a victim of domestic violence and not a perpetrator. There are many reasons that a victim of domestic violence may not leave a violent relationship and this Court has held that a parent’s parental rights may not be terminated because he or she is a victim of domestic violence. In re Plump, 294 Mich App 270, 273; 817 NW2d 119 (2011). I simply will not be a part of the majority’s decision to hold the fact that respondent was a victim of domestic violence against her when it is directly contrary to case law. I have also written a concurrence in a previous opinion that further outlines the significant dynamics of domestic violence that may cause a victim to stay with an abuser. See, In re Sehy Minor, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 14, 2012 (Docket No. 306370). /s/ Amy Ronayne Krause -1-
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.
