Termination under §§ 19b(3)(i) & (j); Reasonable reunification efforts; MCL 712A.19a(2)(c); Children’s best interests

Concluding that respondent-father was not entitled to reunification efforts before his parental rights were terminated, §§ (i) and (j) existed, and termination of his rights was in the children’s best interest, the court affirmed. “The facts showed that respondent’s parental rights had been terminated to his child from another mother because he had sexually abused a half-sibling of that child. The seven-year-old victim had testified that respondent ‘made her suck his penis, view pornographic photos, view pornographic videos, and tried to stick his penis in her anus.’” She further testified that he “threatened to hit her if she told her mother.” This was clear and convincing evidence to support the first part of § (i). Respondent argued “that the trial court should have found that he did not sexually abuse the victim because both he and the mother testified that the mother of the victim had lied about the sexual abuse, he continued to deny any sexual abuse, and he was not criminally charged.” There was no merit to this argument. “There could be many reasons, other than lack of guilt, why respondent was not criminally charged. For one, perhaps the parents and the prosecutor did not want to put the young victim through a second trial on the criminal charges after she had testified at the termination hearing. In addition, both respondent and the mother gave so many conflicting stories about the domestic violence situation, it is very likely the trial court found their testimony not to be credible.” Further, as to the second part of § (i), “failure to rectify, the trial court found that, because respondent had denied both the sexual abuse and the need for therapy, the conditions that led to the termination still existed and had not been rectified. The trial court did not clearly err. Respondent’s failure to accept responsibility, his continual denial that the sexual abuse ever occurred, and his claim that the mother of the victim had lied, gave the trial court clear and convincing evidence to conclude that respondent had failed to rectify the conditions that led to the prior termination.” Although it was not necessary to address another statutory ground for termination, the court also concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence to support termination under § (j). “The facts of the prior termination, respondent’s extensive criminal history, and the more recent domestic violence, was clear and convincing evidence that there was a reasonable likelihood, based on respondent’s conduct and capacity, that there was a risk that the children would be harmed if returned to respondent’s home.”