Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(i); In re Hudson; Criminal sexual conduct (CSC)

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that § (b)(i) supported terminating respondent-father’s parental rights, the court affirmed the termination order. Respondent pled guilty to CSC III against the “child’s mother, who is also respondent’s biological daughter. Respondent’s parental rights to the mother were terminated in 2003.” A short time after they “reconnected in 2022, the mother moved in with respondent and he performed an unofficial marriage ceremony. The mother” later gave birth to the child involved “in this appeal, and later DNA testing confirmed that respondent is the child’s biological father.” He contended that § (b)(i) did “not apply because he was not the mother’s legal father.” The court found this argument was misplaced because § (b)(i) “does not require the existence of a legal relationship between the respondent and the victim.” There was no dispute “that the child and her mother are half-siblings and that respondent is their biological father. Given that” he pled guilty to CSC III “against his child’s mother, who is also her half-sibling, we are not left with ‘a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a mistake’ by finding that respondent sexually abused his child’s sibling.” The court further concluded that, “considering this sexual abuse, the trial court did not clearly err by finding a reasonable likelihood that the child would be sexually abused if returned to respondent’s care.”