Children’s best interests; In re MJC; Challenge to termination under § 19b(3)(j) while not challenging termination under § 19b(3)(m)(i); Child sexually abusive material (CSAM); First-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC I)

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that terminating respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. The case arose after law enforcement executed a search warrant at respondent’s family home in response to a tip alleging he possessed and distributed CSAM. “Law enforcement located 14 images and 16 videos depicting CSAM on” his cell phone. He was arrested on federal charges for possessing and distributing CSAM. On appeal, he first argued that the trial court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence to terminate his rights under § (j). But it also found that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § (m)(i), a finding he did not challenge. Thus, any error as to § (j) would not entitle him “to relief because the trial court need only find that one statutory ground” was proven by clear and convincing evidence. As to the children’s best interests, his 1997 CSC I “conviction evidenced a history of predation against children, and his possession and distribution of CSAM in 2024 demonstrated that his predatory conduct remained ongoing. Not only did that conduct expose the children to the risk of being sexually exploited, but it also exposed [them] to emotional harm.” One of the children acknowledged in a forensic interview that he saw “‘a lot of’ CSAM on” respondent’s cell phone, and he “estimated that the girls depicted in the CSAM were between the ages of 6 and 12 years old—an age range both children fell within at the time of termination.” A clinician’s opinion about the children’s impressionability “and the link between” behavior they had exhibited and respondent’s conduct further supported the trial court’s conclusion that his “behavior posed a risk of physical, mental, and emotional harm to the children.” Its conclusion was also supported by his “failure to accept responsibility for or appreciate the impact on his children of his conduct,” indicating he was “unlikely to refrain from harmful conduct in the future.” In addition, their “need for permanency, stability, and finality” supported termination.