Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); Principle that where a trial court finds that a single statutory ground for termination has been established by clear & convincing evidence & that it has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of a child, it must terminate a respondent's parental rights to that child; MCL 712A.19b(3) & (5); In re Moss Minors; In re Ellis; Best interests of the children; In re Olive/Metts Minors

The court held that the trial court properly terminated the respondent-father’s parental rights to the children where at least one statutory ground for termination existed and it was in the children’s best interests. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by finding that the statutory grounds for termination were proved by clear and convincing evidence. As to § (c)(i), it found that “[c]onsidering respondent’s failure to benefit after having well more than a year to address the issues relating to child abuse,” the trial court did not err in finding that the condition that led to the adjudication continued to exist and was not likely to be rectified within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages. As to § (g), it agreed with the trial court that “respondent would not be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time given the children’s ages.” And as to § (j), it held that the trial court did not err in finding that the children were likely to be harmed if placed in respondent’s home. Finally, the court rejected his claim that the trial court erred by finding that termination of his parental rights was in the children’s best interests. “Although respondent complied with some aspects of his case service plan, he failed to benefit from services because he denied that he had any issues that needed to be addressed. That placed the children at a risk of harm because of respondent’s history of child abuse. The children did not have a strong bond with respondent and had to be coaxed to participate in visits. During the visits, respondent favored one child over the other and had to resort to making his son jealous of his daughter to get his son to interact with him. Respondent also refused to recognize his son’s special needs or his own inability to meet the children’s material needs.” Affirmed.