Termination under § 19b(3)(k)(ii); Jurisdiction; MCL 712A.2; Sufficiency of the evidence; In re Miller; In re Sluiter; Anticipatory neglect; In re Mota; Credibility; Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors

Holding that the evidence at respondent-father’s adjudication trial was sufficient to sustain the jury verdict at issue, that § (k)(ii) was met, and that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed termination of his parental rights. His rights were terminated on the basis of his sexual abuse of the children’s half-sibling and his subsequent conviction of CSC III and multiple counts of CSC IV, which resulted in a lengthy sentence. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that there was insufficient evidence at the adjudication trial to sustain the jury verdict. The victim’s “testimony was consistent with her statements made to medical examiners immediately following the incident in which respondent digitally penetrated her. This pattern of sexual abuse within the home environment was ample evidence for a jury to find that [the children] were at a substantial risk of harm to their mental wellbeing, and that their home environment by reason of cruelty, criminality, and depravity was unfit for them to live.” Considering the “evidence of domestic violence perpetrated by respondent against [the children’s] mother while they were present, as well as evidence of direct physical abuse” and the sexual abuse of the victim while the children “were in the home, a reasonable jury could conclude that respondent posed a danger to” them. The court also rejected his claim that a statutory ground was not met, noting the trial court found credible and reliable the victim’s “testimony regarding respondent’s sexual abuse, including digital penetration. It further found that the abuse began as [she] was developing into a young woman and that [his daughter] would be at a similar age at the time of [his] earliest possible release, which put her at a heightened risk of harm. The evidence, including respondent’s criminal convictions and sentences, amply supported those findings.” Thus, the trial court did not err by finding there was a reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed if returned to his care, meeting the requirements of § (k)(ii). Finally, the court rejected his claim that termination was not in the children’s best interests. The “trial court’s decision was premised on a lack of a bond between respondent and the children; how well the children were doing in mother’s care; the children’s expressions of feeling unsafe around respondent; the need for permanency, stability, and finality; respondent’s sexual abuse of [the victim] and resulting criminal convictions; and [his] controlling nature. The evidence amply supported the trial court’s decision.”