Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(i); “Indian child” status; Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA); In re Fried; Tender-years statements; MCR 3.972(C)(2); In re Martin; Best interests; Anticipatory neglect; In re Mota; Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA)

The court held that the trial court properly terminated respondent-mother’s parental rights because the ICWA and MIFPA did not apply, clear and convincing evidence supported that § (b)(i) warranted termination, and termination was in the child’s (LAL) best interests. Respondent previously lost her rights to two older children. After one of those children, ABIM, came back into her care, ABIM disclosed that respondent physically abused her, including dragging her by the hair, injuring her in a bathtub, and telling her to lie about a black eye. The court first held that neither ICWA nor MIFPA applied because, at the time of the termination proceedings, the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina was not a federally recognized tribe and thus, not an “Indian tribe” under either statute. The court next held that the referee properly relied on ABIM’s forensic-interview statements admitted under MCR 3.972(C)(2), together with medical records showing injuries “consistent with physical abuse,” to find that respondent physically abused a sibling of LAL and that there was a reasonable likelihood LAL would be injured or abused if returned to her care. On best interests, the court noted that ABIM reported respondent hit LAL “really hard.” It held that although respondent and LAL shared a bond, the other factors weighed in favor of termination, including respondent’s poor parenting ability, evidence of abuse, emotional instability, and LAL’s need for safety and stability. The court also pointed to respondent’s inappropriate behavior during visits and the evidence that LAL was doing well in foster care while his father worked toward reunification. Affirmed.