Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(i); Sexual abuse; Anticipatory neglect; In re Mota; Children’s best interests; Individualized findings; In re White; Forensic-interview recordings; MCL 712A.17b(5); In re Martin

The court held that § (b)(i) supported termination, that termination was in the children’s best interests, and that the trial court did not err by admitting forensic-interview recordings. Respondent-father’s three daughters disclosed sexual abuse, including one child’s disclosure of repeated penetrative abuse beginning when she was nine, while there were allegations of physical abuse as to his son. On appeal, the court first held that § (b)(i) was established because the trial court found the oldest daughter’s disclosures “very trustworthy,” noting that her statements were consistent with only “mild deviations,” that she first disclosed “solely to a friend,” and that there was no evidence she was part of a “Machiavellian scheme” to avoid respondent. The court also held that anticipatory neglect supported the risk-of-harm finding because “‘how a parent treats one child is probative of how the parent may treat other children,’” and physical abuse of the son was reported. As to best interests, the court held that individualized findings were adequate because the children’s interests did not significantly differ, except that there was no sexual abuse alleged as to the son, a difference the trial court expressly acknowledged. The court emphasized that the three older children wanted respondent’s rights terminated, the youngest did not ask about him, the children were thriving with their mothers, and termination would provide “finality.” Lastly, the court held that respondent could not obtain relief from the admission of the forensic-interview videos because MCL 712A.17b(5) “‘not only permits but mandates’” admission outside adjudication when prerequisites are met, the interviewer testified that forensic protocol was followed, and respondent had advocated for avoiding live testimony from the children. Affirmed.