Termination of parental rights; Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA); Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act; ICWA notice; Conditional reversal; § (b)(ii) (failure to protect from sexual abuse); MCR 3.977(E); Initial dispositional hearing; Best interests; Relative placement

The court held that conditional reversal was required because the record lacked ICWA-notice documentation, but it rejected respondent-mother’s challenges to statutory grounds and best interests. The trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights under § (b)(ii) after finding she failed to protect the children from sexual abuse by their maternal grandfather. On appeal, the court first held that conditional reversal was required because the lower court file did not include copies of notices or return receipts showing notice to possible tribes. The court reasoned ICWA requires “‘certain documents be included in the record,’” and without them the error could not be deemed harmless. The court next held that the trial court could terminate at the initial disposition on an amended petition because MCR 3.977(E) “clearly contemplates” an amended petition requesting termination. It also held that § (b)(ii) was established because witnesses credibly testified respondent was told in 2021 that one child (JW) had disclosed sexual abuse, yet she later returned the children to the abuser’s home, and the court was not “definitely and firmly convinced” that the trial court erred in finding she placed them at risk and failed to eliminate the risk. The court further held that the trial court did not improperly rely on anticipatory neglect as to the other child (GW) because § (b)(ii) applies when “the child or a sibling” suffered sexual abuse. Finally, the court upheld the best-interests findings because the trial court considered the children’s separate bonds, relative placement, and need for permanency. Conditionally reversed and remanded for ICWA notice compliance.