“Aggravated circumstances”; Zoom appearance; Mathews v Eldridge; Statutory grounds; In re LaFrance; Doctrine of anticipatory neglect; Children’s best interests

The court held that, as to aggravated circumstances, “the trial court did not terminate respondents-parents’ parental rights at the initial disposition without first determining that at least one enumerated exception under MCL 712A.19a(2) was present.” Thus, there was no reversible error. Respondents relied on MCR 3.965(C)(4). Their argument conflated “the statutory requirements for findings regarding reasonable efforts to prevent removal with those relating to reasonable efforts toward reunification—distinct determinations that occur at separate procedural junctures.” As to the Zoom claim, a review of the record led the court “to conclude that the trial court did not deprive respondents of a fundamentally fair process or a meaningful opportunity to be heard by permitting their participation through contemporary videoconferencing technology.” Also, respondents had “wholly failed to engage with the Mathews factors in their appellate briefing and have not demonstrated any deprivation of due process in this case, leading us to conclude that respondents are not entitled to relief on this issue.” Solely for the sake of this argument, respondents conceded that the statutory grounds for termination were satisfied as to MK and TK but that the trial court erred as to OK and KK. The court held that under the “facts, respondents have failed to establish that the trial court’s findings regarding the statutory grounds for termination were clearly erroneous.” Finally, the court held that “all relevant circumstances, specifically the egregious treatment inflicted upon the children by their parents, the trial court did not commit clear error in determining that termination of the respondents’ parental rights with respect to OK and KK served the best interests of the children.” Affirmed.