Whether the petition was stale; Jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1); Effect of an incarcerated parent; In re SR; Children’s best interests; In re White

Rejecting respondent-father’s argument that the petition should have been dismissed as stale, and holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating his parental rights. It noted that he raised the staleness issue after he pled “no contest to jurisdiction and statutory grounds.” The petition alleged that jurisdiction of his “children was proper under MCL 712A.2(b)(1), which includes jurisdiction for children who are subjected to a substantial risk of harm to their mental well-being. Based on the evidence, the trial court did not err when finding that jurisdiction was proper. According to the petition, one of respondent’s children witnessed her father hurting at least three of his girlfriend’s children. And according to the investigation report, which was the basis of respondent’s plea, both children witnessed their father hurting his girlfriend’s children and did not feel safe with [him]. These reports were supported by the girlfriend’s children, who also reported abuse by respondent.” He asserted “that ‘when you have an incarcerated parent at any stage of the proceedings, there is a presumption that there does not exist a risk of harm,’ relying on” SR. But the court there “‘recognized that the fact of incarceration, plus the child’s safe placement with another parent, does not eliminate the possibility of mental or emotional harm to a child victimized by the incarcerated parent.’” The court found that here, “there was evidence of mental or emotional harm to respondent’s children based on their reports.” As to their best interests, it concluded that even if he “did not physically harm the children in this case, there was enough evidence for the trial court to find emotional or mental harm based on the events that occurred and” their reports. Further, while “the trial court should weigh all the available evidence, and must consider relative placement, all of the other best-interest factors are discretionary[.]” The court noted that the trial court’s best-interest findings were “extensive and considered a number of factors, including respondent’s history of domestic violence, the children’s” relative placement, and his bond with them.