Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(ii); Failure to prevent sexual abuse of the children; Best interests of the children; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Olive/Metts Minors; Guardianship; In re Rippy

Holding that the evidence supported that respondent-mother “failed to protect her children from sexual abuse—even facilitating their victimization—and that termination was in all the children’s best interests” the court affirmed termination of her parental rights. It rejected her argument that the DHHS failed to prove a statutory ground for termination. First, the DHHS presented evidence that she knew about the attempted sexual abuse of one of the children “and still allowed her adult son to spend time with her younger children, leading to the sexual abuse of” another one of the children. She “‘had the opportunity to prevent the . . . sexual abuse’ of [the second child] and ‘failed to do so.’” In addition, her statements revealed that, even after the children had accused the adult son of sexual abuse, she supported him and disbelieved the allegations. “This minimization of the son’s alleged conduct is persuasive evidence that the children are reasonably likely to suffer abuse if returned to” her custody. In sum, her “egregious conduct in failing to prevent the sexual abuse” and her indifference to the sexual exploitation, supported “the conclusion that there is a ‘reasonable likelihood that the child[ren] will suffer injury or abuse in the foreseeable future’ if returned to” her care. The court also rejected her claim that termination was not in the children’s best interests “because she was bonded with them and because a guardianship would have preserved that bond.” It noted that the trial court considered her “bond with each child and found that it was unhealthy and had been strained because” she failed to protect the children. It “also considered a variety of other factors, such as the benefits of the children’s current placements, how the children were doing in their placements, and whether the children were likely to be adopted.” Finally, neither condition for a guardianship was met. The “DHHS did not demonstrate that termination was not in the children’s best interests, and the” trial court ordered it to initiate termination proceedings. There was “also no indication in the record that a guardianship was requested or that anyone would have agreed to that arrangement.”