Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(i); Due process; In re Rood; Right to be present at a hearing; MCR 3.972(B)(1); In re Sanborn; Use of videoconferencing; MCR 6.006(D); Children’s best interests; In re White; Anticipatory neglect; In re Kellogg; Relative placement; In re Atchley

Holding that: (1) respondent-mother was not denied due process, (2) § (b)(i) was met, and (3) termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed termination of her parental rights. Her rights were terminated on the basis of her untreated mental illness and her physical abuse of two of the children. The court rejected her argument that she was deprived of due process when the trial court declined to adjourn the bench trial after she had technical difficulties with her Zoom videoconferencing connection. She “was present at the bench trial via Zoom and confirmed that she could see and hear the proceedings, but indicated that she could not be heard while speaking.” The trial court “declined to adjourn the trial, stating that it did not need to hear mother unless and until she was called to testify. Mother was represented by counsel at the hearing. Counsel did not call her to testify, nor [did] she argue on appeal that she wished to testify, but was unable to do so.” Further, despite the technical problem she “had with her phone, she was able to communicate with counsel when the [trial] court placed them in a Zoom breakout room.” As such, there was no evidence that its “decision to proceed with the virtual hearing despite mother’s technical difficulties resulted in fundamental unfairness.” The court also rejected her claim that a statutory ground was not met. “Because both children suffered nonaccidental injuries while in mother’s care, there was clear and convincing evidence to establish statutory grounds for termination under” § (b)(i). Further, under “a theory of anticipatory neglect,” her abuse of two of the children was probative of how she may treat the other child “if she were to be reunited with the children.” Finally, the court rejected her contention that termination was not in the children’s best interests. The record showed her severe physical abuse of two of the children posed a significant risk of harm to them in the future. As such, the trial court found no bond existed between them. She also “suffered from untreated mental health issues, lacked suitable housing, and lacked employment. Her primary source of income came from SSDI payments.” Thus, the trial court “concluded that she would not be able to provide the children with stability, permanency, and finality in the near future.” It also found “termination was appropriate despite the children’s placements with relatives, largely based on mother’s severe abuse of” two of the children, reasoning “that a guardianship would not be appropriate for the same reason and because all three children were very young.” The record also showed that their “placements were able to care for their needs, . . . and were willing to adopt them.”