IN RE MATTHEW ADAM LEONARD MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MATTHEW ADAM LEONARD,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 26, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 243902
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-325159
ANDREW KRYSZTOPANIEC,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Bandstra and O’Connell, JJ.
O’CONNELL, J. (dissenting).
The sole issue in this appeal concerns respondent Andrew Krysztopaniec’s relationship
with the minor child Matthew’s heroin-addicted mother, Kimberly Leonard. Leonard was five
months pregnant with respondent’s next child, but agreed to move out of respondent’s residence
if Matthew was returned to respondent. Matthew was to have no contact with Leonard. At trial,
the court exercised its function as a factfinder and judge of the credibility of the witnesses, see
MCR 2.613(C), and concluded that respondent was still having contact with Leonard, contrary to
the trial court’s warning.
In my opinion, the trial court is in the best position to determine if this child should be
returned to a home with heroin present. It is obvious to me that the trial court concluded that
respondent was still associating with Leonard, the heroin-addicted mother of Matthew. It is also
obvious to me that children should not be returned to homes where they will be exposed to
illegal drugs like heroin. See MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). The majority opinion concludes
that there was not clear and convincing evidence to establish respondent’s continuing
relationship with Leonard. See In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 632-633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). I
disagree, considering that the court is the sole judge of credibility, this record supports the trial
court’s factual conclusions. See MCR 2.613(C); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d
161 (1989). It is not the appellate court’s responsibility to substitute its judgment for that of the
trial court.
I would affirm.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-1-
-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.
