Due process; Repeat proceedings before second referee; In re Sanders; In re VanDalen; In re Sanborn; Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (j), & (k)(ii); Sexual abuse; Risk of future harm; Emotional harm; In re Hudson; Children’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); Safety & well-being

The court held that respondent-father was not denied due process by having the case retried before a second referee, and that statutory grounds and the children’s best interests supported termination. His rights were terminated after one of the children (LA) disclosed that respondent sexually abused her, showed her sexualized videos, directed her to photograph her private area, and instructed her to touch herself sexually. After the first referee heard testimony but before closing arguments, the case was reassigned, and the second referee ordered a new trial so he could personally observe the witnesses and assess credibility. On appeal, the court first held that the procedure was constitutionally adequate because “the process provided was that established by statute and not unlike that provided in any child protective proceeding.” The court reasoned that repeated testimony by certain witnesses did “not suggest a violation of due process nor even a departure from the procedure employed in a typical child protective proceeding,” and the remedy for a due-process defect ordinarily would have been a new trial, which respondent received. The court next held that statutory grounds were established. It deferred to the trial court’s credibility finding that LA gave “consistent, detailed accounts of sexual abuse,” including digital penetration, and that respondent’s allegations of coaching were unsupported. It also held that the children faced future harm because LA was at risk of further abuse and the other child had trauma symptoms after disclosing that he witnessed respondent abusing LA. Finally, the court held that termination was in the children’s best interests. Although the trial court considered their emotional bond to respondent, it found credible evidence of “grooming, secrecy instructions, [and] bribery with toys” and contrasted that with the children’s “healthy and stable bond” with the foster parent, who was meeting their educational, therapeutic, and stability needs. Affirmed.