Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; Reunification services; Aggravated circumstances; MCL 722.638(1) & (2); MCL 722.638(1)(a)(ii); In re Barber/Espinoza; The doctrine of anticipatory neglect; In re Mota; Criminal sexual conduct (CSC)

Holding that a preponderance of the evidence supported that terminating respondent-father’s parental rights was in each child’s best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. The case began after allegations arose that he sexually abused his children’s half sibling (C). He asserted “that the trial court did not give sufficient weight to the bond he shared with the children and” that it conducted “a very limited best-interests analysis.” The court disagreed, noting that the “trial court acknowledged that respondent had a bond with each of the children, but found that the risk” he posed to them outweighed it. The court also noted that while he “and nonrespondent mother were not married, respondent referred to C[] as his stepdaughter and testified that he considered [her] his daughter. [He] had been in [her] life since she was a year old. He maintained that he cared for and protected [her]. But respondent took advantage of his role and committed heinous acts of sexual abuse against” C. This abuse of C “from the age of 11 until the age of 16 was ‘an especially egregious violation of a child who had looked to respondent for care and protection as a father figure.’” The court noted that his treatment of C was “probative of how he may treat her half-siblings:” a 12-year-old, a 9-year-old, an 8-year-old, and a 6-year-old. The fact that two of these children were “boys is of no consequence because, as” the court recognized in Mota, “‘abuse is abuse.’” While there was no evidence he “abused any of his four children,” the court was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake by concluding that the factors that weighed against termination of respondent’s parental rights were outweighed by the risk that he may harm” them. It also rejected his claim “that he should have been offered reunification services and given additional time to demonstrate his commitment to the children.” While the trial court did not explicitly state in its written orders that it “found aggravating circumstances under MCL 722.638(1) and (2),” it implicitly did so “by finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate respondent’s parental rights under” § (k)(ii). The court concluded that the “record evidence supported that both MCL 722.638(1) and” 722.638(2) were satisfied. Thus, the “DHHS was ‘not obligated to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family.’”