Best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); Relative placement factor; In re Gonzales/Martinez; Credibility determinations; In re HRC; Child safety/parenting ability; In re White

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding termination was in the children’s best interests, even though both children were placed with relatives, because the safety concerns and respondent-mother’s lack of parenting ability outweighed the relative-placement factor. After a KidsTALK interview, LUP reported sexual assaults by respondent’s former boyfriend and other men when LUP was between five and eight years old and stated respondent “was aware and present for some of the assaults” but did nothing to prevent them and later denied they occurred. LUP also reported respondent left both children home alone when they were very young, used alcohol and drugs, and once tried to suffocate her with a pillow. The DHHS sought termination at initial disposition, and respondent’s rights to three other children had already been terminated. The trial court found statutory grounds under §§ (b)(ii), (i), and (j) and then found by a preponderance that termination served both children’s best interests. On appeal, respondent did not challenge statutory grounds and argued only best interests, claiming the trial court overweighed the sexual-abuse allegations, underweighted relative placement, and failed to credit her recent efforts (housing, parenting classes, psychological evaluation, counseling). The panel rejected these arguments, emphasizing it could not disturb the trial court’s credibility determinations and that the abuse allegations “bear directly” on respondent’s ability to keep the children safe, especially where her denial showed she had not acknowledged or addressed the underlying risk. The court also held the trial court expressly considered the children’s placements with relatives as required, but relative placement is “not dispositive,” and the trial court could conclude it was outweighed by the serious safety concerns, lack of bond, and need for “permanency, stability, and finality.” Affirmed.