Termination under §§ 19b(3)(i) & (j); Jury trial; MCR 3.911; In re Sanders; Aggravated circumstances; MCL 722.638(1)(b)(i); In re Barber/Espinoza; Best interests; Anticipatory neglect; In re Mota

The court held that respondents’ parental rights were properly terminated because: (1) respondent-father waived any jury-trial right; (2) aggravated circumstances excused reunification efforts; (3) clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §§ (i) and (j); and (4) termination was in the child’s (AU) best interests. Two days after AU was born in 8/24, the DHHS petitioned to take the child into protective custody and terminate respondents’ rights, relying in part on the 9/23 termination of their rights to five other children because of chronic unstable housing, domestic violence, mental-health problems, substance abuse, and failure to meet the children’s needs. The court held that the father waived a jury trial by failing to file the written demand required by MCR 3.911(B), and it rejected his ineffective-assistance claim because he did not show that counsel’s decision to proceed with a bench trial was unsound strategy or outcome determinative. The court next held that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction and found aggravated circumstances because respondents still had no verified housing, had not meaningfully engaged in services, and had failed to rectify the conditions that led to the prior terminations. The court further held that statutory grounds were established under §§ (i) and (j), emphasizing the prior terminations, respondents’ ongoing instability, and the doctrine of anticipatory neglect. On best interests, the court held that termination was warranted despite respondents’ complaints about bonding because the evidence showed continuing substance-abuse, mental-health, domestic-violence, housing, and financial problems, while AU’s foster placement provided safety, stability, and care. Affirmed.