Termination under § 19b(3)(j); Termination at the initial dispositional hearing; In re AMAC; Reasonable reunification efforts; Aggravated circumstances; In re Simonetta; MCL 712A.19a(2)(a); MCL 722.638(1)(a)(iii)

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that an aggravating circumstance existed making reasonable reunification efforts unnecessary, or in terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights under § (j) at the initial dispositional hearing. Thus, it affirmed the termination order. One of respondent’s children (LS) testified that respondent’s boyfriend (D) “grabbed the back of his neck, threw him against the wall and onto the ground, put his knee on LS’s chest, slapped him, and choked him, resulting in LS needing surgery to rehabilitate a broken arm. The trial court noted that LS’s testimony was ‘extremely credible’ in this case,” and the court defers “‘to the trial court’s special opportunity to judge the’” witnesses’ credibility. D’s “infliction of serious harm on LS constituted an aggravating circumstance under MCL 722.638(1)(a)(iii).” As to a statutory ground for terminating respondent’s rights, the court concluded that her “choice of romantic partners placed the children in danger.” It noted that despite D’s “abuse against LS, respondent: (1) conspired with [D] to discredit LS’s disclosure and lie about how LS sustained his injuries, (2) continued a romantic relationship with [D], and (3) continued to allow [D] around the children.” Further, in 2019, the parental rights of the father of two of the children were terminated due to “his sexual and physical abuse against the children[.]” In addition, in 2024 another child was “removed from respondent’s care, and concerns had been raised about [D’s] hostility and inappropriateness in that case.” The court held that given “respondent’s history of choosing romantic partners that placed her children in danger, [her] refusal to sign or comply with a case service plan, and the fact that none of the children reported feeling safe in [her] home, the trial court did not clearly err” in finding that § (j) was established.