Termination of parental rights; Effect of a trial court’s failure to conduct a statutory-grounds analysis under MCL 712A.19b(3); Findings of fact & conclusions of law; MCR 3.977(I)(1)-(2); Children’s best interests; The doctrine of anticipatory neglect

Holding that the trial court erred by proceeding directly to the best-interests analysis without first determining whether a statutory ground for termination was met, the court vacated its order and remanded. This case concerned respondent-father and his two sons (CAZ and MAZ). It was initiated on the basis of his “prolonged and severe sexual and physical abuse of their half-sister, JFS.” The trial court declined to terminate his parental rights, finding that doing so was not in the boys’ best interests. On appeal, the court noted that the trial court “held a combined adjudication and termination hearing but took the matter under advisement without making findings on the record. It later entered a written order exercising jurisdiction over the” children but concluded that termination was not in their best interests. The trial court “dismissed the petition and released the children to their nonrespondent mother. In doing so, it made no findings regarding statutory grounds . . . stating only: ‘Now that the court has found jurisdiction, the next step is to look at best interests.’ Even when a court declines to terminate parental rights, it must ‘state on the record or in writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law.’ Skipping the statutory-grounds analysis altogether was a clear procedural defect that warrants remand.” The court noted that, on remand, the trial court “must determine whether petitioner established a statutory ground for termination” and if “it finds such a ground, [it] must then consider whether termination is in the best interests of the children, giving appropriate weight to the doctrine of anticipatory neglect.”