Termination at initial disposition; Aggravated circumstances; MCL 712A.19a(2)(a); MCL 722.638(1)(a)(ii) & (2); In re Simonetta; In re Smith-Taylor; Whether termination was premature; Child’s best interests; In re Simpson

Finding (1) no error meriting relief in the trial court’s determination that aggravated circumstances existed and (2) that it properly weighed all the available evidence in making its best-interests ruling, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights to the child at initial disposition. The trial court “found that ‘[t]he acts that were stipulated to through the prior testimony and the pleadings in the file all put forth the aggravated circumstances of sexual abuse [by respondent’s boyfriend] and sexually based photographs which were taken by’ respondent.” The court noted that “the allegations in the petition served as the factual basis for respondent’s plea, and those allegations detailed the sexual abuse of [the child] by respondent’s boyfriend, [her] knowledge of that sexual abuse and failure to intervene, and [her] sexual exploitation of” the child. Thus, it was “clear from the record that the [trial] court made the judicial determination that aggravated circumstances existed such that reasonable efforts were not required.” Further, the court saw “no error in the trial court’s aggravated-circumstances finding. The allegations in the petition, as well as testimony by both the CPS investigator and the detective involved in the criminal investigation of the sexual-abuse and sexual-exploitation allegations, established that respondent’s boyfriend, who was undisputedly older than 18 years of age, sexually penetrated [the child] on multiple different occasions.” The court found no merit in respondent’s arguments that termination was premature. As to the child’s best interests, it rejected her claim “the trial court gave inadequate weight to the parent-child bond . . . .” The trial court acknowledged there was a bond and “that respondent ‘clearly love[d]’” the child, and still concluded termination was in the child’s “best interests because a ‘continued relationship’ between” them placed the child “‘at risk of harm’ and ‘would open [the child] up to continuing abuse any time that there would be potential access.’” The trial “court emphasized that respondent ‘d[id] not appreciate the depravity of the underlying acts’ of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation . . . , had shown no ‘insight into the physical and emotional harm that she’” had caused the child “‘through her actions,’ and had shown ‘no insight to be able to protect [the child] in the future.’” The record was consistent with its findings.