Reasonable reunification efforts; MCL 712A.19a(2)(a); Aggravated circumstances; MCL 722.638; MCL 712.A19b(4); Suspension of parenting time; MCL 712A.13a(13)

The court was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court’s decision to excuse [the DHHS] from making reasonable efforts toward reunification between the” child and respondent-father was erroneous. The record supported “the trial court’s determination that clear and convincing evidence was presented that aggravated circumstances existed under MCL 712A.19a(2)(a) and MCL 722.638.” Also, the court found “no abuse of discretion in the suspension of parenting time.” It noted that “when entering its original order directing [the DHHS] not to offer respondent services with a goal toward reunification, the trial court referenced [his] prior convictions and history involving criminal sexual conduct with minors. Specifically, [it] stated that reasonable efforts were not required for [him] because ‘he subjected a prior child to a CSC as provided in MCL 722.638(1) and (2) as evidenced by the termination [of rights to] that child due to the CSC allegation.’” The trial court also referred to respondent’s two CSC III convictions. “These findings were sufficient to authorize the trial court to find that aggravated circumstances existed under MCL 712A.19a(2)(a).” The court noted that respondent “denied any sexual misconduct on his part throughout the termination hearing. However, the trial court found that his guilty plea and his no contest plea to sexual abuse allegations involved similar acts of sexual misconduct against young children were more compelling than his testimony. We defer to the trial court’s ability to weigh the evidence presented and to [its] factual findings that are not clearly erroneous.” Further, respondent’s claim “that he would have participated in services had they been provided is not supported by the factual record.” To the contrary, he “was told numerous times that he could independently seek referrals from [the DHHS] for services that included housing assistance.” Despite this, he “failed to reach out for assistance and was unable to be contacted despite reasonable efforts on the part of the foster care worker assigned to the child’s case. Respondent’s living situation was not congenial to the care for the minor child as respondent admitted he was homeless and had no income because he was incarcerated.” Affirmed.