Child protective proceedings; Jurisdiction; MCL 712A.2(b)(1); Jury instructions; Waiver; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Hearsay; Therapy records; Failure to move for a directed verdict; Termination under § 19b(3)(j); Child’s best interests; Relative placement

The court held that: 1) jurisdiction was supported, 2) respondent-father was not denied effective assistance of counsel, 3) § (j) supported termination, and 4) termination was in the child’s best interests. The DHHS filed a petition alleging respondent sexually abused his child, and after an adjudicative trial and termination hearing, the trial court terminated his parental rights. On appeal, the court first held that respondent waived his challenge to the jury instructions because counsel expressly stated he had no objections, and “[w]aiver extinguishes any error, leaving nothing for this Court to review.” The court next held that jurisdiction was supported under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) because the child testified respondent sexually abused her, including by “oral penetration” and sexual contact, and the resulting trauma affected her mental well-being. The court reasoned that she required therapy for anxiety and depression and reported she did not feel safe at home. The court also rejected respondent’s ineffective-assistance claims. As to the child’s testimony, the court held it was not hearsay because she testified about “memories she had concerning respondent,” not merely prior out-of-court statements. As to therapy records, counsel’s decision not to use them was reasonable because they contained “more contemporaneous statements about respondent’s sexual assaults” that would have harmed the defense. As to not moving for a directed verdict, the court held counsel was not ineffective because conflicting evidence required the jury to decide whether sexual abuse occurred. The court next held that § (j) supported termination because the trial court reasonably found that respondent sexually abused the child, denied responsibility, and the resulting anxiety, depression, and lack of safety showed an “actualized risk of emotional harm.” Finally, the court held that termination was in the child’s best interests despite their bond and the child’s relative placement because respondent’s ability to parent was “highly suspect,” he did not accept responsibility, and the trial court adequately considered that relative placement weighed against termination. Affirmed.