IN RE AMANDA, AUDRIANA AND TRENTON CHRISTIAN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AC, AC and TC, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 14, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 231350
Bay Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-006594-NA
PENNY CHRISTIAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BRIAN CHRISTIAN,
Respondent.
Before: White, P.J., and Talbot and E.R. Post*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) (failure to protect children
from abuse) and (g) (failure to provide proper care and custody). We affirm.
The family court did not clearly err in finding that § § 19b(3)(b)(ii) and (g) were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I), In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). Petitioner’s evidence established that respondent-appellant failed to
protect her children from sexual abuse by allowing their father to move back into the home
illegally after he was convicted of sexual abuse. The trial court did not err in finding that
respondent-appellant did not resolve the dependent personality disorder and that she would be
likely to resume a relationship with the father or with another abusive partner. Because the
evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was clearly not
in the children’s best interests, the trial court did not err in terminating her parental rights. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
We also find no merit to respondent-appellant’s argument that she was denied the
effective assistance of counsel. In analyzing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at
termination hearings, this Court applies by analogy the principles of ineffective assistance of
counsel as they have developed in the criminal law context. In re Simon, 171 Mich App 443,
447; 431 NW2d 71 (1988). A criminal defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must
satisfy the two-part test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v
Washington, 466 US 668; 104 S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). People v Pickens, 446 Mich
298, 302-303; 521 NW2d 797 (1994). First, the defendant must show that counsel made errors
so serious that counsel was not performing as the “counsel” guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment. People v Carbin, 463 Mich 590, 600; 623 NW2d 884 (2001). This requires
overcoming the strong presumption that the counsel’s performance was sound trial strategy. Id.
Next, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, which
requires a showing of a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, the result of the
proceeding would have been different. Id. Though her attorney made a few minor
misstatements of the law, these errors were insignificant and did not prejudice respondent. Nor
was respondent-appellant prejudiced when her counsel was unable to attend a hearing on
appointing counsel for one of the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Edward R. Post
-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.
