Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(i); Child’s best interests; In MJC; In re White

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding (1) that § (b)(i) was established and (2) that terminating respondent-father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. Thus, it affirmed the termination order. The child “testified that she was sleeping in her bed at respondent’s home when she awoke to [him] digitally penetrating her vagina. Her mother testified that” the child initially stated “that someone had touched the inside of her vagina, and . . . later identified respondent as the perpetrator. The mother also noted that [the child] had become withdrawn, depressed, and anxious after respondent began exercising parenting time. [The child] made similar disclosures to her school counselor and a forensic interviewer, both of whom testified at the termination hearing. [Her] therapist, who was qualified as an expert in childhood development and therapy, testified that [the child] disclosed in sessions that respondent had touched her while she was asleep. The therapist did not believe that [she] had been coached to fabricate the allegations, noting that [she] exhibited symptoms consistent with sexual abuse trauma and that children who are coached typically do not display such indicators. Two drawings [the child] made in therapy depicting the alleged abuse were also admitted into evidence. Given that record, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that respondent sexually abused [the child] and that there was a reasonable likelihood of harm if she were returned to his care.” He argued that her “testimony that the sexual abuse occurred while she was asleep ‘raises the question of whether she was even conscious, and whether she was perhaps dreaming.’ But [she] testified that she awoke to find [him] touching her vagina, resolving any such question.” While he also emphasized “that he was not criminally charged,” the court noted the “absence of criminal charges does not undermine the trial court’s findings under” § (b)(i). As to the child’s best interests, even if the trial court had erred in considering the lack of a parent-child bond here, “the remaining evidence—including [the child’s] trauma, her therapist’s opinion, and the nature of respondent’s conduct—would still support [its] best-interests determination.” Further, in the absence of a bond between respondent and the child, his “relationship with his other daughters does not meaningfully affect the best-interests analysis.”