Probable cause to authorize the petition; MCL 722.638; In re Ferranti; Due process; Whether reunification efforts were required; MCL 712A.19a(2)(a); Criminal sexual conduct (CSC) as an “aggravated circumstances” (MCL 722.638(1)(a)(ii)); Doctrine of anticipatory neglect; Removal; MCR 3.965(C)(2)-(4); MCL 712A.13a(9)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in authorizing the petition seeking termination of respondents’ parental rights at disposition. Further, respondent-father’s due-process rights were not violated by allowing the DHHS to remove his son without creating a written safety plan, and respondents did not “establish any error during the removal proceedings warranting reversal.” The case began after CPS investigated allegations that the father “sexually abused his stepdaughter, MB.” Both respondents argued “the trial court erred by authorizing the petition because the sexual assault allegations were not sufficiently credible to meet the probable-cause standard.” The court held that there was “no clear error in the factual findings supporting the probable-cause determination in this case. The referee found that there were credible allegations that [the] father had sexually abused MB via [CSC] involving penetration and respondent-mother was aware of the allegations but failed to protect MB from this abuse. The referee’s findings, which were adopted by the trial court, were supported by the testimony of the caseworker who stated that MB consistently told at least eight different people that [the] father had been sexually assaulting her for years.” While she had previously recanted similar allegations, “according to MB’s therapist, the allegations were ‘consistent enough to raise red flags.’” In addition, “MB reported to the CPS investigator that respondents told her to lie and tell the DHHS that she fabricated the allegations. The referee found the CPS investigator’s testimony credible[.]” Based on “these facts, the trial court did not clearly err by finding, under the probable-cause standard, that there were credible allegations that [the] father had sexually abused MB and that [the] mother failed to protect MB from this abuse.” The court added that, while there was no evidence the father abused the other children, it was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake by concluding that there was probable cause to believe that [they] were also at risk of abuse or neglect.” As to the father’s due process claim, the “DHHS had a statutory duty to file a petition and request that the” trial court terminate his parental rights to his son OE “at the initial disposition . . . because [the] father was accused of sexually abusing OE’s half-sibling[.]” Affirmed.