Best-interests determination; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Moss; Anticipatory neglect inference; In re LaFrance; Relative placement weighing; In re Olive/Metts

The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that termination was in the children’s best interests given respondent-father’s sexual abuse of a teen in the home, his lack of accountability and rule-violations, and the mother’s inability to protect. The DHHS petitioned at initial disposition after respondent sexually assaulted his 16-year-old stepdaughter in the family home, and respondent pled no contest to jurisdiction and to statutory grounds, leaving only best interests for dispute. The trial court found termination was in the children’s best interests, emphasizing that respondent denied wrongdoing during the best-interest evaluation despite his criminal plea, claiming he pled guilty based on counsel’s advice, and that he violated protective court orders by bringing items to the children outside of supervised visitation. The trial court also found the mother could not protect the children because she questioned whether the abuse occurred and was not seeking a divorce. On appeal, the court rejected respondent’s claim that the trial court improperly relied on anticipatory neglect, noting that how a parent treats one child is “certainly probative” of how the parent may treat others, and that the trial court relied on the broader record, including respondent’s lack of responsibility and disregard of safety-based court orders. The court also acknowledged the children’s placement with their mother but held the placement did not preclude termination where the trial court found termination best served safety and well-being. The court concluded it was not “definitely and firmly convinced” the trial court made a mistake and affirmed.