IN RE KIEONNA HATTEN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KEIONNA HATTEN, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 19, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 270742
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-443500-NA
WILLIAM HATTEN,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Smolenski and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 632-633; 593
NW2d 520 (1999). Less than a year earlier, respondent deliberately injured the child’s 22month-old half-sibling and caused a subdural hemorrhage.1 Although respondent claims that
there was no evidence that he injured his own child, who was taken into care shortly after her
birth, § 19b(3)(b)(i) applies where the abuse is inflicted on a sibling of the child. Moreover,
“‘[h]ow a parent treats one child is certainly probative of how that parent may treat other
children.’” In re AH, 245 Mich App 77, 84; 627 NW2d 33 (2001), quoting In re LaFlure, 48
Mich App 377, 392; 210 NW2d 482 (1973). Respondent’s treatment of the child’s half-sibling
showed that there was a reasonable likelihood of harm to respondent’s child.
The trial court did not clearly err in its analysis of the child’s best interests. If the court
determines that a statutory ground for termination has been established, the court must terminate
parental rights unless there exists clear evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in
1
The severity of the injury is indicated by the classification of a subdural hemorrhage as “serious
physical harm” for purposes of the criminal statutes relating to child abuse. MCL
750.136b(1)(f).
-1-
the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407
(2000). In this case, there was no evidence suggesting that termination of respondent’s parental
rights was not in the child’s best interests. The trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s
parental rights to the child.
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.