Termination under § 19b(3)(g); The children’s removal; MCL 712A.13a(9); Accepting a respondent’s plea to establish jurisdiction over the children; MCR 3.971(B)(4); In re Pederson; Sufficient factual basis for the plea; MCR 3.971(D)(2); Grounds for exercising jurisdiction; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2); Evidentiary rulings at the termination hearing; Exclusion of a witness for failure to timely disclose the prospective witness; MCR 3.922(A)(1); Admission of documents; Rebuttal testimony; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Frey; Children’s best interests; In re White; In re Olive/Metts

The court held that § (g) was established and that terminating respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Further, the trial court did not plainly err in removing them from his care, or in accepting his plea and exercising jurisdiction over them. There was no merit to his claim his plea was invalid because it lacked a factual basis. The court also rejected his challenges to the admission and exclusion of evidence at the termination hearing, and his claim the DHHS did not make reasonable reunification efforts, concluding that he “failed to uphold his ‘commensurate responsibility’ to engage in and benefit from” offered services. Thus, it affirmed the order terminating his parental rights. It determined that the trial court considered all five of MCL 712A.13a(9)’s requirements in deciding to place the children in foster care. “The trial court noted the parties’ extensive history with domestic violence and respondent’s failure to comply with or benefit from services that were provided to him in previous proceedings.” The court found no plain error. As to the adjudication, the trial court complied with MCR 3.971 and the court noted the record did “not support that the trial court viewed respondent’s plea as the sole basis to terminate his parental rights.” As to the exercise of jurisdiction, to the extent respondent contended “that a nolo contendere plea is insufficient to establish jurisdiction,” he was mistaken. In addition, the evidence on which the trial court relied “was sufficient to establish support for a finding that jurisdiction was proper under MCL 712A.2(b)(1)[.]” As to a statutory ground for termination, the record was “replete with evidence that respondent acted in an intimidating and aggressive manner in the presence of caseworkers and service providers during the proceeding.” He was also at times unemployed, moved several times, “sometimes missed parenting times and struggled with effectively parenting the children throughout” the case. The court concluded that given the lack of evidence he “would be able to regulate his emotions, engage in healthy relationships, effectively parent the children, and maintain stable housing and employment, it is unlikely that he would be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time.”