Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(ii) & (j); Children’s best interests; In re Gonzales/Martinez; In re Moss Minors; In re Schadler; In re Medina; Tender years; In re Martin; In re Brown; Admission of child’s statements under MCR 3.972(C)(2)(a) & accompanying DVD under MCL 712A.17b; MCL 712A.17b(5); MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2); Whether jurisdiction was proper under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2); In re Ferranti; In re Sanders; Parent-agency treatment plan (PATP); Criminal sexual conduct (CSC)

Holding that §§ (b)(ii) and (j) existed, that termination was in the children’s (L and A) best interests, that the referee did not abuse her discretion when she admitted L’s statements during the Kids Talk Interview and the accompanying DVD, and that jurisdiction was proper under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2), the court affirmed termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights. There was clear and convincing evidence to terminate her rights under § (b)(ii). Although the mother testified that she first learned about the sexual abuse in 2/19 and did nothing until CPS became involved in 4/19, L told the interviewer (M) during the 5/2/19 interview that respondent’s live-in boyfriend (J) started to sexually abuse her when she was five years old. L also told M that she told the mother about the sexual abuse on her sixth birthday, which would have been 11/17/16. L’s statements to M showed “that respondent knew about the sexual abuse for years and did nothing to protect” L. Also, the termination of her parental rights under § (j) was appropriate. The referee relied on respondent’s testimony to determine that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate her parental rights because she did not take appropriate action upon learning that J sexually abused L. There was no dispute that respondent knew that J sexually abused L for a minimum of two months and did nothing to protect the child until CPS became involved. Without any logical explanation, respondent continued to allow J to live in the house with the children despite knowing that J was a sexual predator. Further, respondent’s history of exposing the children to sexual predators demonstrated that they would be harmed if returned to her care. In 2016, the children came within the court’s jurisdiction because A was sexually abused by children that F (L’s father) sexually abused. The children remained in respondent’s care, but she was required to complete a PATP. Despite F’s conviction for CSC "with a minor and despite respondent’s counseling and parenting classes, respondent allowed [F] to contact” the children, further exposing them to a sexual predator. Even after respondent learned about the extent of J’s sexual abuse of L, she continued to allow J to stay at the house. Respondent demonstrated that she lacked the parenting skills to protect her children from harm and would knowingly allow contact between them and sexual predators.