IN RE LUCAS BOWEN HAGGERTY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LUCAS BOWEN HAGGERTY,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 21, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 269826
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-712273-NA
JASON STEVEN HAGGERTY,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: White, P.J. Zahra, and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent-appellant pleaded no contest to the allegations in the petition for permanent
custody, which alleged severe domestic violence against the child’s mother, that she was
pregnant with the minor child during some of the violence, that her older children were present at
times during the domestic violence, and that respondent-appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated
domestic violence and attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct. The matter was set for a
best interests hearing and respondent-appellant’s psychological evaluation was admitted into
evidence.
Respondent-appellant does not challenge the trial court’s finding that subsections (g) and
(j) were established by clear and convincing evidence but argues that the trial court erred in its
best interests determination because he never injured the minor child or any of the children and
was only violent toward their mother. This Court reviews decisions terminating parental rights
for clear error. MCR 3.977(J). Clear error has been defined as a decision that strikes this Court
as more than just maybe or probably wrong. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 357; 612 NW2d 407
(2000). Termination of parental rights is mandatory if the trial court finds that the petitioner
established a statutory ground for termination, unless the court finds that termination is clearly
not in the child’s best interest. Id. at 344; MCL 712A.19b(5).
-1-
The trial court did not clearly err in its best interests determination where respondentappellant committed extremely violent acts against the mother of the minor child in the presence
of her children, where respondent-appellant’s psychological evaluation recommended that he not
have contact with any children or his wife, and where there was no strong bond between
respondent-appellant and Lucas.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
