Termination at the initial disposition; Aggravated circumstances; In re Barber/Espinoza; MCL 712A.19a(2); MCL 722.638; Distinguishing In re Simonetta & In re Berryman/Hurd/Morgan/Morgan-Hurd; Child’s best interests; Individualized findings; Reliance on unproven allegations; Due process; Requirement that evidence bear sufficient indicia of fairness, reliability, & trustworthiness

The court held that the trial court did not fail to find the existence of aggravated circumstances allowing termination of respondent-father’s parental rights at the initial disposition. As to his child’s (DLS) best interests, it also did not fail to make individualized findings. But it did clearly err “in relying on unproven allegations that respondent also molested a second child.” Thus, the court affirmed in part, vacated the best-interest determination, and remanded. The DHHS sought “to terminate respondent’s parental rights to DLS after it investigated and substantiated allegations that respondent had repeatedly sexually abused DLS’s 14-year-old half-sister[.]” On appeal, the court disagreed with respondent’s assertion the trial court failed to determine whether aggravated circumstances existed. It noted that the “DHHS specifically alleged that aggravated circumstances existed in its petition and the trial court articulated factual findings based on” the DHHS’s investigative summary of the case, a document that it referred to as CPS 154, “establishing the existence of aggravated circumstances. The” court found the case respondent relied on, Simonetta, and another case it reviewed, Berryman, distinguishable. It concluded that “the trial court’s omission of the words ‘aggravated circumstances’ or reference to the pertinent statutes does not negate the factual findings it articulated establishing their existence and to which respondent pleaded no contest.” Thus, under the plain-error standard of review that applied here, reversal was not warranted. As to best interests, the court determined that “the trial court considered DLS’s individualized circumstances in finding that the stability, permanence, and finality provided by termination was in DLS’s best interests. [It] did not clearly err” as to those findings. However, as to the unproven allegations that respondent molested a second child, the record contained “no indication that anything was done to verify, corroborate, investigate, or otherwise follow up on” that report. The record also suggested “the unproven allegation was likely a significant factor in the trial court’s ultimate best-interest determination.” As a result, the court remanded for a new best-interest hearing.