Court Opinion

ID: 9402573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 05:05:47.498063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.806782
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                            STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                                                                     UNPUBLISHED
In re SHAW, Minors.                                                  June 15, 2023

                                                                     Nos. 362752; 362753
                                                                     Macomb Circuit Court
                                                                     Family Division
                                                                     LC Nos. 2022-000118-NA;
                                                                             2022-000119-NA

Before: RICK, P.J., and SHAPIRO and O’BRIEN, JJ.

O’BRIEN, J. (dissenting).

         It is undisputed that TS suffered severe, unexplained, nonaccidentental trauma while in
respondents’ care. The only people called to testify about how TS’s trauma happened were
respondents, and the referee credited Dr. Bradley Norat’s testimony that respondents’ explanation
for TS’s injuries was implausible. This finding necessarily means that respondents—the persons
responsible for TS’s care at the time that TS suffered severe, nonaccidental trauma—either do not
know how the trauma occurred or are refusing to say. Either way, based on that conduct, TS’s
well-being cannot be assured in their care, i.e., it is reasonably likely that TS will be harmed if
returned to respondents’ care. Further, although there is no evidence that AS suffered from
physical injuries, she is of a similar age to TS and is similarly situated, and thus, the doctrine of
anticipatory neglect allows the inference that AS is also in danger of being harmed or neglected if
left in respondents’ care. See In re Kellogg, 331 Mich App 249, 259; 952 NW2d 544 (2020).
Accordingly, I would conclude that the trial court clearly erred when it refused to find a statutory
ground for termination under, at the very least, MCL 712a.19b(3)(j). I therefore respectfully
dissent.

                                                              /s/ Colleen A. O’Brien

                                                -1-