Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(i), (g), & (j); The clear & convincing evidence standard; MCR 3.977(A)(3) & (H)(3); In re Trejo Minors; In re Martin; Best interests of the children; Expert testimony; MRE 702

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court held that the trial court properly terminated respondent-father’s parental rights to the children under §§ (b)(i), (g), and (j), and that it was in the children’s best interests. In a prior appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s order terminating respondent’s parental rights. The Supreme Court remanded with instructions to remand to the trial court for it to reconsider its order terminating his parental rights and to “apply the ‘clear and convincing’ evidentiary standard to the allegation of sexual abuse against” respondent. On remand, the trial court again terminated his parental rights. In the present appeal, the court observed that, on remand, the trial court “noted numerous times that it was applying the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard in finding a statutory basis for termination, which included a finding, also by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent sexually abused” one of the children. As such, it “fully complied with our Supreme Court’s remand order.” In addition, the court concluded that termination was in the children’s best interests, holding that “the trial court’s finding that defendant sexually abused his daughter, and engaged in a series of actions to cover up that fact, backed up by physical threats, more than supported the trial court’s findings by a preponderance of the evidence.” Affirmed.