Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(i), (j), & (k)(ix); No-contest plea; MCR 3.971(D)(1); In re Pederson; Ineffective assistance; In re Casto; Best interests; In re Atchley

The court held that respondent-father failed to show error in the acceptance of his no-contest plea or in the best-interests determination and failed to establish ineffective assistance. The DHHS alleged that respondent sexually abused his 13-year-old daughter by putting his hand down her pants and rubbing her buttocks, and the child disclosed the incident to a relative and during a forensic interview. The trial court accepted respondent’s no-contest plea to jurisdiction and statutory grounds under §§ (b)(i), (j), & (k)(ix), then after a best-interests hearing terminated his parental rights. On appeal, the court held that respondent’s challenge to the plea was unpreserved and that he could not establish “clear or obvious” error because the record did not definitively show whether the CPS report used for the factual basis was provided before or during the hearing. He also failed to show prejudice because he did not contend he would have rejected the plea if he had reviewed the report. The court also rejected the claim that the trial court failed to confirm the plea type, noting respondent agreed on the record that he was entering a no-contest plea. It next found that the ineffective-assistance claim failed because respondent did not argue prejudice and, in any event, there was no reasonable probability the outcome would have differed given the lack of any showing that he would have declined the plea. The court finally held the trial court did not err in finding termination was in the child’s best interests, relying on the sexual-assault statutory grounds, the weak bond, the child’s expressed lack of safety and preference to remain with her mother, and the child’s need for permanency and protection. Affirmed.