IN RE GUILFOIL MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SABRINA MARIE GUILFOIL and
STEVEN PAUL GUILFOIL, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 18, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252320
Tuscola Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-008135-NA
BONNIE GUILFOIL,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Sawyer and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals by delayed leave granted the order terminating her parental rights to
the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony regarding Sabrina’s
hearsay statements of respondent’s knowledge of and participation in Sabrina’s sexual abuse
without first conducting a tender years hearing in accordance with MCR 3.972(C)(2).
Respondent did not object to lack of a tender years hearing, and the issue was not preserved for
appeal. Unpreserved nonconstitutional error requires that respondent show plain error that
affected her substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 773-774; 597 NW2d 130
(1999).
The record showed that Sabrina’s statements regarding respondent’s knowledge of the
abuse contained sufficient indicia of trustworthiness, and the trial court’s failure to hold a
separate tender years hearing did not affect her substantial rights. In re Snyder, 223 Mich App
85, 92-93; 566 NW2d 18 (1997). Sabrina’s statements regarding respondent photographing the
abuse did not contain sufficient indicia of trustworthiness, but the admission of these statements
was harmless error in light of the ample other evidence supporting the statutory grounds for
termination. Admitting testimony about the photographs did not affect respondent’s substantial
rights.
Respondent also argues that the trial court erred in relying on her plea of no contest
because the trial court’s failure to advise her that her plea could be used in terminating her
-1-
parental rights rendered her plea constitutionally defective. MCR 3.971(B)(4). Substantial
compliance with the court rule in giving a defendant an advice of rights is required in criminal
cases. Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 113; 235 NW2d 132 (1975). While the trial court in a
child protective proceeding need not conform to all requirements in criminal procedure, the
essential requirements of due process and fair treatment must be met. In re Campbell, 170 Mich
App 243, 250; 428 NW2d 347 (1988).
The evidence showed that respondent was advised that her no-contest plea allowed the
trial court to consider the evidence presented by petitioner as establishing the allegations in the
petition, and that if a petition for termination was later brought the court could terminate her
parental rights if the evidence warranted. Respondent was represented by counsel and consulted
with counsel about her plea. The trial court’s advice substantially complied with the requirement
that respondent be advised that her plea could be used to terminate her parental rights.
Respondent’s plea was not constitutionally defective, and the trial court did not err in relying on
it in the proceedings.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Karen Fort Hood
-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.
