Decision to authorize the petition to initiate child protective proceedings; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2); Removal of the child; MCR 3.965(C); In re Benavides; Ruling that reasonable reunification efforts did not have to be made; In re Smith-Taylor; MCL 712A.19a(2); MCL 722.638(1)(a)(ii) (criminal sexual conduct (CSC) involving penetration, attempted penetration, or assault with intent to penetrate the child)

The court held that MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2) both provided grounds for authorizing the petition here and that the trial court did not err in removing the child (RG) from respondent-father’s custody. It also did not clearly err in determining “that no reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify the family would be made” due to the existence of aggravating circumstances – clear and convincing record “evidence that respondent sexually abused RG.” As to authorization of the petition, “RG disclosed in a forensic interview, in a medical examination, and to several other individuals that” respondent had sexually abused her. Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in “finding probable cause to believe that respondent engaged in conduct falling within MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2)[.]” As to RG’s removal, the alleged sexual abuse showed that she “faced a substantial risk of harm if not removed from respondent’s custody.” Additionally, her allegations “provided a sufficient factual basis to establish that remaining in” his custody would be contrary to her welfare. Given that the case was “based on accusations of sexual abuse, separation from respondent was the only provision reasonably available to alleviate the risk of harm to RG. . . . Further, in the face of the severity of the allegations, the investigation and the forensic interview constituted reasonable efforts to avoid removal.” The court lastly noted that “because RG was placed with her mother and” there were no allegations against the “mother, the conditions were adequate to safeguard RG.” As to reunification efforts, she “disclosed that respondent had sexually abused her in several ways, and such allegations constitute an aggravated circumstance under MCL 712A.19a(2).” A DHHS caseworker testified that although RG’s medical exam “did not reveal any physical findings of sexual abuse, her disclosures” were consistent throughout “the investigation. RG’s allegations were included in DHHS’s petition, all of which were detailed, specific, and consistent with one another. A parent’s sexual abuse of a child places that child in substantial risk of harm if he or she were to remain in that parent’s custody and care or be placed back into that parent’s care.” Under the circumstances, “it was not unreasonable for the trial court to find that DHHS was not obligated to make reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify the family.” Affirmed.