Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(i) & (k)(ii); Claim that reversal was required because of the delay in trial; MCR 3.972(A); MCR 3.923(G); In re Jackson; In re Brown/Kindle/Muhammad; Waived issue; Lewis v. LeGrow; Holmes v. Holmes; "Good cause" for an adjournment; In re Utrera; Children’s best interests; In re White; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re HRC

The court held that the respondent-father waived the delay issue in his trial by agreeing to adjourn his trial until after his criminal case, that the trial court’s decision to adjourn the jurisdiction trial until after his criminal trial was not outside the range of principled outcomes, and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The initial petition involving the children was filed in 6/13, seeking court jurisdiction over them and termination of respondent’s parental rights based on his sexual abuse of the children’s half-sister. A pretrial was held in 8/13. “At that time, respondent had criminal charges pending stemming from the assault on his stepdaughter, and petitioner requested the criminal matter be resolved before proceeding on this case.” On appeal, respondent contended that reversal was required because of the delay in his trial. The trial court reasonably concluded that “protecting the victim’s emotional well-being constituted good cause for adjourning the matter until after respondent’s criminal case was resolved. The trial started shortly after the criminal proceedings were concluded, so the adjournment was for as short a period as necessary.” Although it “focused mostly on the best interests of the victim (who was not a subject of the petition in this case), rather than the two children at issue, respondent” did not allege, nor did any evidence indicate, that adjournment was contrary to these children’s best interests. “While this matter was pending, the children remained in their mother’s care and were doing well and thriving.” Affirmed.