Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(i); Acceptance of a no-contest plea; Compliance with MCR 3.971’s requirements; Plain error review; In re Pederson; Reasonable reunification efforts; Child’s best interests; Relative placement; In re Mota; Case service plan (CSP)

The court held that respondent-father failed to establish plain error related to the trial court’s acceptance of his no-contest plea and compliance with MCR 3.971’s requirements. It was also not convinced that the trial court was mistaken in finding that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, and it held that termination was supported under § (b)(i). Finally, it concluded that the trial court’s findings as to the child’s best interests were sufficient. Thus, it affirmed the termination order. As to the adjudication, it held that the trial court complied with the requirement that the petition be read in open court. There was “no dispute that respondent and his counsel were present, that the May hearing occurred prior to the hearing where [he] entered his plea, and that the trial court read aloud the contents of the petition.” His argument on this point was factually incorrect. He next argued that, at the 9/1/23 “hearing, the trial court failed to explain that the contents of the petition that respondent would be pleading no-contest to could be used in subsequent termination proceedings.” But the record was “replete with references by the [trial] court about how respondent’s plea would preclude him from contesting the truthfulness of the petition allegations, and from petitioner having to prove any of those allegations. With counsel by his side, and having had many on and off the record discussions about the potential for a plea, respondent expressed that he understood these ramifications, and still wanted to plead no contest.” The court determined that while “one somewhat ambiguous statement” to the effect that the “plea would not be used against him was arguably not accurate, one comment did not render invalid the otherwise lengthy and thorough colloquy, particularly when respondent was very engaged in the discussions about whether, and how to enter a plea, and his counsel was also actively engaged in the hearing.” The court also rejected his argument “that he was not advised that he would have to comply with a CSP, and if he failed to do so, termination” could occur. Thus, it concluded the trial “court only misspoke on one occasion, but otherwise did not commit the errors” he asserted it did, and the “error in not clearly articulating that the plea could be used against him later in the proceedings did not affect” his substantial rights.