§§ (b)(ii), (c)(i), & (j)

Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i), & (j); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Advice to enter a no-contest plea; In re Casto; Reasonable reunification efforts; Aggravated circumstances; MCL 722.638(1)(a); In re Barber/Espinoza; Validity of plea; MCR 3.971; Factual basis; In re Olive/Metts Minors

The court held that respondent-father was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, that any reasonable-efforts error did not affect his substantial rights, and that his no-contest plea supported termination under §§ (b)(ii), (c)(i), and (j). The trial court originally took jurisdiction after domestic violence occurred in the child’s presence, later returned the child to respondent’s care, and then removed the child again after wounds appeared that medical personnel found were consistent with nonaccidental cigarette burns. On appeal, the court first held that counsel performed unreasonably by stipulating that respondent had severely beaten the mother when “the record did not support this factual basis,” but respondent failed to show prejudice because the trial court already knew its prior findings and terminated parental rights because the child was injured soon after returning to respondent’s care and respondent had not visited the child in nine months. The court also rejected respondent’s challenge to counsel’s stipulation that the child’s injuries were nonaccidental and consistent with cigarette burns because the stipulation “did not name respondent as the cause of the injuries,” and counsel could still argue that respondent did not inflict them. The court next held that the trial court erred by allowing the DHHS to stop reasonable efforts because there was “no evidence establishing the requirements of MCL 722.638(1)(a),” but the error did not affect substantial rights because respondent had already quit counseling and visitation before the order. As to the plea, the court held that respondent knowingly and voluntarily entered it, and his later disputes reflected “irritation and frustration,” not confusion. Although the plea did not support §§ (b)(iii) or (c)(ii), it supported §§ (b)(ii), (c)(i), and (j) because respondent’s anger-management issues continued, the child sustained unexplained nonaccidental injuries in his care, and there was a reasonable likelihood of harm if returned. Affirmed.