Termination under § 19b(3)(j); In re Gonzalez/Martinez; Likelihood of harm; In re Pops; Notice under the Indian Children Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 USC § 1291(a)) & Michigan law (MCL 712B.9(1)); Whether the trial court was required to view video recordings of the children’s interviews; MCL 712A.17b(5); Reasonable reunification efforts; MCL 712A.18f(3)(b)-(d); MCL 712A.19a(2); In re Hicks; Best interests of the children

The court held that the trial court did not fail to comply with the ICWA’s notice provision and was not required to view video recordings of the children’s forensic interviews. It also held that the DHHS did not fail to make reasonable reunification efforts, § (j) was met, and termination was in the children’s best interests. It rejected respondent-mother’s argument that the DHHS and the trial court failed to comply with the ICWA. “[A]n initial discussion occurred at the preliminary hearing highlighting that the children may be Native American. However, at that same hearing, the prosecutor represented that, in a previous case involving the children, the proper paperwork was sent to the Cherokee Nation, the tribe that father identified, and it replied that the children were not members.” At a later review hearing, both parents “reported that the children were not Native American.” As such, the trial court “did not have reason to know that the children were Native American, and” the mother was not entitled to relief on this issue. As to her claim that the trial court erred when it did not view video recordings of the children’s forensic interviews, “the children had not been accused of any wrongdoing.” In other words, the statute she asserted “the trial court violated does not apply in this case by its express terms.” The court also rejected her contention the DHHS did not make reasonable efforts to reunify the family in light of her difficulties with some learning tasks. As she acknowledged, the referee “was the most concerned with [her] reluctance to accept or unwillingness to believe the children and recognize the children’s complex traumas. Without this acceptance, the referee believed that there were no efforts the DHHS could make, in a reasonable time given the children’s ages, that would rectify the barriers to reunification.” In addition, § (j) was met as “the record supported the trial court’s finding that returning to mother’s care presented a risk of emotional harm to the children.” Finally, termination was in their best interests. The record showed that they all, “except one who was removed a few days after his birth and was still an infant, exhibited hypersexual behaviors associated with sexual abuse. Witnesses testified that the children needed permanency, stability, and support in overcoming their traumas. The children were receiving these things in their foster homes. But, as the referee was centrally concerned about, mother had not” shown she was willing to believe them. Affirmed.