Termination under § 19b(3)(k)(ix); “Sexual abuse”; MCL 722.622(z); “Sexual contact”; “Sexual penetration”; MCL 750.520a(r); Best interests of the children; In re White; Anticipatory neglect; In re AH

Holding that § (k)(ix) was met, and that termination was in the children’s (SEB and MNB) best interests, the court affirmed termination of respondent-father’s parental rights. His rights were terminated based on his sexual abuse of SEB. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the DHHS failed to prove a statutory ground for termination. “[T]he evidence support[ed] finding by clear and convincing evidence that respondent engaged in ‘sexual contact’ with SEB as that term is defined in MCL 750.520a(q), and thus that [he] engaged in ‘sexual abuse’ with a child as that term is defined in MCL 722.622(z). This in turn supports that respondent’s parental rights to SEB and MNB (as SEB’s sibling) were properly terminated under” § (k)(ix). In addition, the trial court did not err by finding “there was a reasonable likelihood that both children would be harmed if returned to respondent’s care in light of his sexual abuse of SEB.” Further, none of his arguments “warrant a conclusion that the trial court erred by crediting SEB’s statements.” The court also rejected his claim that termination was not in the children’s best interests. The trial court did not err by concluding that “ensuring SEB’s safety and well-being outweighed preserving her bond with respondent, which supports the court’s conclusion that termination was in SEB’s best interests.” Moreover, the trial court “properly applied the doctrine of anticipatory neglect to conclude that it was in MNB’s best interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights.” In sum, the trial court’s “overarching concern was the children’s safety and well-being, and it believed that, in light of respondent’s sexually assaulting SEB, neither child’s safety or wellbeing could be reasonably ensured if left in respondent’s care.” It did not err in this regard.