Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(i); Sexual abuse; Sexual contact; MCL 750.520a; In re HRC; Reasonable likelihood of future harm; In re Mota; Children’s best interests; Relative placement; In re CJM; MCR 3.977(I)(1)

The court held that § (b)(i) supported termination of respondent-father’s parental rights, but that the trial court’s best-interest findings were inadequate because it failed to address the child’s relative placement. The DHHS alleged respondent sexually abused his four-year-old child, who was placed with her mother. The court first held that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § (b)(i) because respondent did not dispute touching the child’s genital area with bare fingers while bathing her, and the trial court was entitled to find the touching was sexual rather than for hygiene. The court relied on the child’s report that respondent bathed her “every day,” focused “right around the clitoris,” and went “wiggle, wiggle, wiggle with his finger,” along with testimony that she rarely had accidents and respondent only recently began bathing her. The court next held that a reasonable likelihood of future injury or abuse was shown because repeated sexual abuse alone supported that risk, and respondent’s admitted sexual attraction to the child’s half-sister was “probative of how respondent may treat [the child] in the future.” The court emphasized the trial court’s concern that respondent could develop similar feelings toward the child as she got older, especially because he had already touched her “in ‘a sexual area.’” But the court vacated the best-interest ruling because the trial court’s findings consisted only of “safety and security,” while the child’s placement with her mother had to be expressly considered as weighing against termination. Under CJM, the court explained that failure to address relative placement renders the record “inadequate to make a best-interest determination and requires reversal.” Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court retained jurisdiction.