Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(ii); Setting aside polygraph evidence; Credibility determinations; Children’s best interests; Consideration of relative placement; In re Olive/Metts

Holding that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § (b)(ii) and that terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed. As an initial matter, she asserted “the trial court erroneously decided not to credit” her polygraph exam, which she contended showed “she was not lying about her knowledge of” the sexual abuse of one of the children and that she did not coach them. The court rejected this argument “for multiple reasons. First, respondent stipulated to the trial court only considering the polygraph evidence for best-interest findings, so she” could not now rely on it as to statutory grounds. Further, “the trial court did not find that respondent actually knew her husband was abusing [the child] and rather found that, when she was told about her husband’s sexual abuse of [the child’s] sibling, respondent disbelieved the sibling and covered up the abuse.” Thus, the court found that the trial court “did not err by setting aside the polygraph evidence when considering the statutory grounds for termination.” And while she pointed “to evidence from which the trial court arguably could have supported a different conclusion,” this assertion invited the court “to make impermissible independent factual findings and our own assessment of the relative credibility of the witnesses.” Thus, it found “no clear error in the trial court’s resolution of the conflict in favor of the children who described respondent engaging in abuse and manipulation.” The court also held that ample evidence supported “the trial court’s conclusion that respondent could have prevented” the sexual abuse. The “trial court resolved the witnesses’ conflicting testimony by crediting those who stated respondent affirmatively acted to conceal her husband’s sexual abuse of [the child’s] sibling and should have believed the sibling[.]” The court was not persuaded by the fact that “no outsiders noticed the abuse, as respondent insists,” given that this “would be the expected outcome of actively covering up the abuse.” In addition, the record showed “all three children would likely be harmed if returned to respondent’s care.” As to their best interests, the “trial court was plainly aware of the” children’s relative placements and the requirement to consider them in making its decision.