Termination under § 19b(3)(m)(i); Child’s best interests; Criminal sexual conduct (CSC)

Holding that § (m)(i) supported terminating respondent-father’s parental rights and that doing so was in his child’s best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. Respondent “physically and sexually assaulted his minor niece,” and pled guilty to two counts of CSC. “The trial court took judicial notice of [his] uncontested criminal record reflecting his two CSC convictions under MCL 750.520b(1)(a) and MCL 750.520c(2)(b). Those plainly satisfy the statutory grounds for termination” in § (m)(i). Thus, the court held that the “trial court properly considered the CSC convictions and was not required to find clear and convincing evidence in any other statutory ground to proceed to a best-interest determination.” As to his child’s best interests, respondent’s “history of CSC and physical abuse of young girls related to [his child] not only reflects his questionable parenting abilities but may also be indicative of how respondent might treat [her]. He beat his minor nieces by marriage with belts and hangers and forced them to do exercises as punishment, admitting his efforts were ‘heavy handed.’ Most significantly, one niece testified he ‘fondled her and penetrated her mouth and anus.’” The court concluded that this “conduct was sufficiently severe to warrant termination of his parental rights to his biological sons despite no allegations of physical or sexual abuse against them. It is not unreasonable—as several witnesses opined—to anticipate” that his treatment of his daughter “might closely resemble his maltreatment of the nieces.” The court also noted that his “parole conditions flowing from his CSC convictions prohibited him from having contact with minor children—his own actions prevented him from having parenting time with” his daughter, with the result that “they lacked a meaningful bond.”