Termination under § 19b(3)(k)(ii); Anticipatory neglect; Due process; Assumption of jurisdiction after the adjudication bench trial; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2); Reasonable reunification efforts; Aggravated circumstances; MCL 722.638; MCL 712A.19a(2); Credibility; Children’s best interests; In re Sanborn; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Distinguishing In re Casto

The court rejected respondent-father’s due process violation claims, holding that the trial court did not err in taking jurisdiction of the children at issue pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2), or plainly err in finding that reasonable reunification efforts were made. It also held that § (k)(ii) supported termination, and that the trial court did not err in finding termination was in the children’s best interests. Finally, the court rejected respondent’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The case arose after one of respondent’s biological children not involved in the case, SB, reported that he had sexually abused her and his stepdaughter, EE. As to respondent’s due process claim and the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction, it “heard and reviewed the testimony of SB, EE, and respondent, and ultimately determined that SB’s and EE’s testimony along with the substantiated CPS history of abuse was more credible.” The court affirmed “the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction because respondent has failed to demonstrate [its] findings were erroneous in any way; let alone arbitrary.” As to reasonable reunification efforts, the adjudication order and a CPS worker’s testimony showed that various reasonable efforts were made. The court also noted “there was no duty to provide services” here given that “there was ‘a judicial determination that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances . . . .’” The court next held that, at “a minimum, the trial court’s finding that respondent sexually abused SB clearly” supported termination pursuant to § (k)(ii) “because under the doctrine of anticipatory neglect, there is a reasonable likelihood that respondent would abuse the children that are the subject of the petition.” In addition, “a preponderance of the evidence supported the trial court’s determination that termination was in the children’s best interests.” Finally, finding that there were “key differences” between this case and Casto, the court concluded that respondent “failed to adequately establish that his counsel’s performance was deficient, much less prejudicial.” Affirmed.