Children’s best interests; Parent-child bond; Sexual abuse of sibling; Anticipatory neglect; In re Mota; In re AH; Distinguishing In re Kellogg & In re LaFrance; Relative placement; In re Atchley; Credibility

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding that termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Respondent challenged only the best-interests ruling after the trial court found statutory grounds based on his sexual abuse of the children’s half-sister, who regarded him as her father and had cognitive and developmental impairments. The court first acknowledged factors weighing against termination, including an “undisputed” parental bond, appropriate parenting time, and placement with nonrespondent-mother, but held that the trial court properly considered those “countervailing factors.” The court next held that respondent’s sexual abuse of the half-sister was highly probative of risk to the children because, under anticipatory neglect, a parent’s treatment of one child is “probative of potential treatment of other children.” The court reasoned that Kellogg and LaFrance were distinguishable because this case involved a nonbiological child to whom respondent stood in a parental role, and Mota recognizes use of anticipatory neglect where a respondent “has assumed a parental role with respect to the victim.” The court also held that the children’s vulnerabilities supported the risk finding because one child had developmental disabilities and the younger children’s “tender age and susceptibility” placed them similarly at risk. Finally, the court deferred to the trial court’s credibility finding that the half-sister’s allegations were “highly credible and persuasive,” particularly because her cognitive delays made successful coaching “unlikely.” Affirmed.