Termination under §§ 19b(3)(g) & (j); Authorization of the petition; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2); Discovery; Jury instruction on the definition of “neglect”; Reasonable reunification efforts; Reliance on domestic violence; Children’s best interests; Relative placement; Whether respondent’s home was preferable; Psychologist’s report

The court affirmed the trial court’s order terminating respondent-mother's parental rights to her four children, MC1, NC, MC2, and WC, under §§ (g) and (j). Respondent first argued “that the trial court erred by authorizing the petition after the preliminary hearing because she did not pose a substantial risk of harm to the children’s mental well-being.” As to “MCL 712A.2(b)(1), the petition alleged—and testimony at the preliminary hearing supported—that the children were subject to a substantial risk of harm to their emotional well-being because none of the children felt safe living in respondent’s home and all of the children—but MC1 and WC in particular—struggled emotionally while in respondent’s care.” The CPS investigator testified that “the children reported during their forensic interviews that they did not feel safe living in respondent’s home.” WC disclosed “that respondent’s partner had sexually abused her multiple times, . . . frequently stood by her bedroom door and watched her, and that she was afraid to sleep with the door open because she was afraid that someone would come into her room at night.” MC1 indicated “she was constantly emotionally distraught while living with respondent, namely due to the sexual abuse and misconduct by respondent’s partner, and she engaged in self-harming behaviors as a result. And when investigators first investigated the sexual-abuse and misconduct allegations, they observed MC1 crying after respondent refused to let her leave the home.” NC and MC1 “reported that respondent regularly forced the children to do household chores for hours before they were permitted to eat dinner, that they frequently did chores until midnight despite a 5:30 a.m. wake-up time for school, and that they were typically left to feed themselves.” The court saw “no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s authorization of the petition on this basis.” As for MCL 712A.2(b)(2), it noted “there were allegations and evidence that the criminality and depravity of respondent and respondent’s partner, a ‘nonparent adult’ living with the children at respondent’s behest, left the children in an unsafe home environment where they were exposed to sexual misconduct and abuse, as well as domestic violence.” Thus, on this record, “there was probable cause that the allegations in the petition were true and could support the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(2)” The trial court did not “err by finding as much,” and did not “abuse its discretion by authorizing the petition on this basis[.]”