Termination under § (b)(i); Sexual abuse of sibling; In re Sours; Best interests; Relative placement; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Olive/Metts; Anticipatory neglect; In re Mota

The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § (b)(i), and that the trial court did not err by finding termination was in AJB’s best interests. The case arose after CPS investigated allegations that respondent-father sexually abused AJB’s 16-year-old half-sibling, AB, who disclosed in a forensic interview that respondent gave her alcohol and raped her during an out-of-town trip. The trial court took jurisdiction, found statutory grounds under §§ (b)(i), (j), and (k)(ii), and terminated respondent’s parental rights after also finding that AJB’s best interests favored termination. On appeal, the court held that AB’s testimony alone could establish sexual abuse, and it deferred to the trial court’s finding that her testimony was “extremely credible.” The court next held that respondent’s sexual assault of AB supported a finding under § (b)(i) because his treatment of her was probative of how he would treat AJB in the future. Having upheld that statutory ground, the court declined to address the other grounds. On the best-interests issue, the court held that the trial court properly considered the bond between respondent and AJB, his apparent ability to provide stability, his compliance with supervised visitation, and AJB’s placement with her mother as a relative placement. But it agreed that those factors were outweighed by the risk of harm to AJB and that a “wait-and-see” approach was not a meaningful alternative. The court emphasized that respondent’s sexual assault of a child who looked to him as a father figure was “an especially egregious violation,” and that this supported the conclusion that he lacked the parenting judgment necessary to safely parent AJB. Affirmed.