IN RE THEISEN/THEISEN-CRAMER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LEO PAUL THEISEN and
CASSIE ELEANOR THEISEN-CRAMER,
Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 14, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 269067
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-684907-NA
KENNETH ROY CRAMER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BARBARA THEISEN,
Respondent.
Before: Fort Hood, P.J., and Murray and Donofrio, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (h). Because
petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence at least one statutory ground for
termination of parental rights and the record as a whole fails to establish by clear evidence that
termination is not in the children’s best interests, we affirm. This case is being decided without
oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The initial petition sought the temporary custody of the children, alleged the children’s
mother had physically abused the oldest child, and that respondent-appellant was on parole.
When respondent-appellant later violated his parole, he was returned to prison, where he was
provided a parent-agency agreement and where he participated in an anger managementdomestic violence class, a substance abuse group program, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings,
and a drama video workshop group (he had also completed several other programs while
incarcerated before his parole). At the time of the trial on the supplemental termination petition
respondent-appellant remained incarcerated. He also had an extensive criminal history, which
-1-
included a felony conviction for third-degree criminal sexual conduct with a child aged between
13 and 15 years.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that at least one statutory ground had
been established by clear and convincing evidence. In re CR, 250 Mich App 185, 194-195; 646
NW2d 506 (2002). This Court reviews that finding under the clearly erroneous standard. MCR
3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent-appellant
admitted that he had failed in the past to provide proper care and custody for the children.
Because of his incarceration, he had not rectified the adjudicating condition of being unavailable
to provide care for the children.1 There was no reasonable likelihood that respondent-appellant
would be released soon since he was not eligible for parole until the year 2007, and had already
been continued three times. Also, he apparently had not benefited from his participation in the
various prison programs since he had violated his parole in numerous ways after the completion
of many of those programs. However well meaning and sincere respondent-appellant was when
he spoke of his new outlook, his actions belied his claims. By the time of the termination trial,
Leo was six years old and had spent much of his life in a guardianship or under petitioner’s care,
while four-year-old Cassie did not know respondent-appellant at all. It was not reasonable to
require the children to wait nearly two more years on the chance that respondent may be paroled
in 2007. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err when it found that statutory grounds for the
termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights had been established by clear and
convincing evidence.
Finally, the trial court did not clearly err in its determination regarding the children’s best
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 353. A review of the entire record showed that the
children and respondent-appellant were not bonded. In addition, a psychological evaluation
concluded that respondent-appellant was a highly antisocial person, who did not appear bothered
by his behavior or motivated to change.
Affirmed.
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
1
Contrary to respondent-appellant’s argument on appeal, the mere presence of respondentappellant at the hearings did not mean he had been available to provide care and custody.
-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.
