Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(i) & (k)(ii); Doctrine of anticipatory neglect; Comparing In re Mota; Advice of appellate rights; MCR 3.972(F); Child’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts; Effect of relative placement

The court held that terminating respondent-father’s parental rights was supported under §§ (b)(i) and (k)(ii), that he was properly advised of his appellate rights, and that termination was in the child’s (JBI) best interests. The case arose from “respondent’s sexual assault of JBI’s half-sister, TM.” TM testified about respondent’s actions, and the trial court found her “testimony to be sincere and credible.” It was unpersuaded by respondent’s efforts to discredit her “by stating that she had a motive to lie to get out of trouble and pointing out that she was unable to provide the precise dates and times of the abuse. Deferring to the trial court’s special opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility,” the court found that its reasoning supported “a finding that respondent’s sexual abuse under” §§ (b)(i) and (k)(ii) “was proved by clear and convincing evidence.” Further, because the children were “siblings, respondent’s sexual abuse of TM supported termination of his rights as to JBI under” these statutory grounds. The court rejected respondent’s assertion that there was no evidence showing “a reasonable likelihood that JBI will be harmed if he is returned to respondent’s care, and that the doctrine of anticipatory neglect” did not apply. He “repeatedly sexually abused his stepdaughter. On one occasion, [he] sexually abused TM while JBI was present in the same room sleeping.” Under the circumstances, there was “evidence to believe that [he] may not restrain himself from sexually abusing JBI. It was thus appropriate for the trial court to evaluate a respondent’s potential risk to JBI by analyzing how respondent treated TM.” As to the advice of appellate rights, he was advised of his rights “after the best-interest portion of the combined termination hearing” and in writing. The court also found that, while several factors weighed against it, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination “was in JBI’s best interests. Respondent’s parenting ability was concerning.” In addition to his abuse of TM, a form of domestic violence, there was testimony that JBI’s dental needs were not met while in his care. “Finally, stability and permanency would be beneficial for JBI.” In his grandparents’ care, he “was able to maintain relationships with his siblings,” which he would not be able to do in respondent’s care. The grandparents’ willingness to adopt him also favored termination. Affirmed.