IN RE DRAHEIM MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ANTHONY MICHAEL
DRAHEIM, KIMBERLY MARIE DRAHEIM,
and TYLER WILLIAM DRAHEIM, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 14, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 271325
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-000241-NA
DOUGLAS M. DRAHEIM,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Smolenski and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights
to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(k)(ii). We affirm.
There is no merit to respondent’s argument that the trial court failed to sufficiently state
its findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the children’s best interests. Although
the court did not state its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record, it addressed this
issue in a written opinion, which was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of “brief, definite, and
pertinent findings and conclusions” on contested matters. MCR 3.977(H)(1).
Further, the trial court did not clearly err in its determination of the children’s best
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 351; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although
Dr. Michael Katz did not believe that it was in the children’s best interests to terminate
respondent’s parental rights, the trial court was justified in discounting his opinion in light of his
expressed personal view that termination was rarely appropriate, even in cases of sexual abuse.
Furthermore, Dr. Katz never spoke to the children or heard their concerns, and based his opinion
on his conversations with respondent and respondent’s parents. The trial court, however, had the
benefit of additional testimony and evidence, including the testimony of respondent’s
stepdaughter, who testified regarding the sexual abuse she experienced at the hands of
respondent, and the court found her testimony to be very credible. There was also evidence that
respondent frequently made degrading and inappropriate remarks in front of the children, that he
touched them inappropriately, that he was physically abusive to the boys, and that the children’s
mother was afraid of him. The children’s therapist testified that further contact with respondent
-1-
would be harmful to the children. A court-appointed expert also testified that continued contact
between respondent and his children could be harmful to the children in circumstances similar to
those that existed here. On this record, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that
termination of respondent’s parental rights was not contrary to the children’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/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.
