IN RE LATRINA MARIE BELSER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of GENESIS UNDERWOOD and
ELIJAH UNDERWOOD, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 14, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 268681
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-434359-NA
MARVIN BELSER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PLEZSHETTE THOMAS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of GENESIS UNDERWOOD and
ELIJAH UNDERWOOD, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 268682
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-434359-NA
PLEZSHETTE THOMAS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARVIN BELSER,
Respondent.
-1-
In the Matter of MARVIN BELSER and
PRECIOUS RENA BELSER, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 268803
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-432670-NA
MARVIN BELSER,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of LATRINA MARIE BELSER,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 268907
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-332901-NA
MARVIN BELSER,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Sawyer and Jansen, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent father Marvin Belser appeals as of right the orders terminating his parental
rights to his minor children.1 Respondent mother Plezshette Thomas appeals as of right the order
terminating her parental rights to her minor children.2 We affirm.
1
MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) (sexual abuse), (g) (failure to provide proper care and custody), (j)
(likely harm if returned), and (k)(ii) (sexual abuse involving penetration).
2
MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) (failure to prevent sexual abuse), (g), and (j)
-2-
I. Belser’s Appeal
A petitioner must establish at least one statutory ground for termination of parental rights
by clear and convincing evidence.3 Here, petitioner Department of Human Services provided
clear and convincing evidence that Belser committed criminal sexual conduct involving
penetration against at least one of his daughters.4 The lower court has a special opportunity to
judge witness credibility.5 The daughter provided consistent testimony of repeated sexual abuse,
as well as physical and emotional abuse. The only contrary evidence was that of her brother,
who was considerably less credible and seemed emotionally manipulated by Belser. The
continuing pattern of abuse made it reasonably likely that the children would be abused or
injured if returned6 and reasonably likely that Belser could not provide proper care and custody
in a reasonable time.7
Whenever a lower court finds a statutory ground for termination, it must terminate
parental rights unless termination was clearly against the children’s best interests.8 There is no
specific burden on either party; rather, the trial court should weigh all evidence available.9 We
conclude that Belser’s ability to provide housing and whatever bond his children felt for him was
outweighed by the sexual, physical, and emotional abuse and his failure to properly meet his
children’s significant needs. Therefore, the lower court did not err when it held termination was
not clearly against the children’s best interests and terminated Belser’s parental rights.
II. Thomas’s Appeal
The lower court terminated Thomas’s rights, primarily because of her failure to prevent
the abuse. Contrary to the Department’s assertion on appeal, the lower court excluded all
documentary evidence regarding events in Alabama. However, there was testimony that the
daughter was abused for three years by her stepfather, before and after Thomas went into the
hospital. There was also testimony that Thomas knew her older daughter accused Belser of
sexual abuse in Alabama, although he was found not guilty and regained custody of another
daughter placed temporarily in foster care. Thomas left her children alone with Belser for many
hours, even after her daughter needed hospitalization for drinking alcohol and she suspected
something was wrong. Even after Thomas moved out and learned of the abuse, she did not
realize her daughter spent a month meeting her father for sexual intercourse and bringing home
money.
3
In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003).
4
See MCL 712A.19b(3)(k)(ii).
5
In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
6
MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and (j).
7
MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).
8
MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 352-353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
9
In re Trejo, supra at 354.
-3-
Both children required serious intervention to protect them from Belser and other
predators, and Thomas repeatedly proved herself unable to provide assistance. The children
were reasonably likely to be abused or injured if returned,10 and it was reasonably likely that
Thomas could not provide proper care and custody in a reasonable time.11 Although the children
spent most of their lives with Thomas and at least one child did not want her parental rights
terminated, the children needed stability and safety. Their difficulty separating from an abusive
father demonstrated emotional needs that Thomas failed to meet. Therefore, the lower court did
not err when it held that termination was not clearly against the children’s best interests and
terminated Thomas’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
10
MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) and (j).
11
MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).
-4-
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.