Children’s best interests; Whether reasonable reunification efforts were required; MCL 712A.19a(2)(b)(iv); Timing of the petition; MCR 3.977

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that terminating respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed. The trial court legitimately considered his “failure to accept responsibility for” the injuries to one of the children (JSL) “as probative of an ongoing risk of harm to the children should they be returned to his care.” Further, the record showed that his “purported acceptance of responsibility is undermined by his own inconsistent statements.” The court was “not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court erred by viewing respondent’s failure to take accountability and show remorse for his past actions as a factor that supported” terminating his rights. It also determined that evidence of his “present aptitude as a parent and bond with the children is tenuous at best and does not rise to the level of” showing the trial court erred in concluding that termination was in the children’s best interests. As to his assertion that they were safe in their mother’s care and that she could protect them if he were allowed some visitation, both she and a DHHS employee “opined that termination was the best way to ensure the children’s safety.” And the court found that there was “abundant evidence in the record supporting” this. It showed that his “physical abuse has permanently impacted JSL and will continue to do so in the future. Furthermore, while the children are presently safe and healthy, the trial court noted that the professional judgment of multiple witnesses supported that there is a high risk of respondent reoffending and abusing his children further. [It] determined that respondent’s abuse reflected a pattern of violent behavior and was not convinced that, even with treatment, [he] would be able to control his emotions and not abuse the children.” As to his assertion he should have had “the opportunity to complete a parent agency agreement[,]” the court held that in light of his no-contest plea conviction of first-degree child abuse, reasonable reunification efforts were not required. Finally, it rejected his claim that the “petition was filed too late and should have been filed at the time” he pled to the criminal charges. MCR 3.977 “does not impose a time limit on the filing of a” termination petition, and this issue was irrelevant to the court’s review of the only issue he raised on appeal, the children’s best interests.