IN RE THOMAS BURNS JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of THOMAS BURNS, JR., Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 23, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 285622
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-741487-NA
THOMAS BURNS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals by right from an order terminating his parental rights to the minor
child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(l). We affirm. We are deciding this appeal without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Although respondent asserts that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights
under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j), the record discloses that the court declined to terminate his
parental rights under those grounds. Instead, the court relied solely on § 19b(3)(l) as the
statutory basis for termination. Respondent admitted that his parental rights to another child
were previously terminated in 2005, and evidence of the petition and termination order in that
prior case was admitted at the hearing in this case. In light of this evidence, the trial court did
not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(l) was established by clear and convincing evidence.
MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999).
Further, the evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). The child was less than one year old; respondent had a history of criminal
sexual conduct involving other children, and a psychologist who evaluated respondent concluded
that he lacked insight into his behavior and was at a high risk of re-offending. Contrary to what
respondent suggests, the trial court was not required to consider the statutory best interest factors
of the child custody act, MCL 722.23(a) – (l). Those factors do not apply to child protection
proceedings. In re JS & SM, 231 Mich App 92, 100; 585 NW2d 326 (1998), overruled in part on
-1-
other grounds in In re Trejo, supra. The trial court did not clearly err in terminating
respondent’s parental rights to the child. In re Trejo, supra at 356.
We affirm.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.