Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(i) & (j); Sexual abuse of a sibling; Principle that how a parent treats one child is probative of how that parent may treat other children; In re Mota; Best interests of the children; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Olive/Metts Minors

Holding that §§ (b)(i) and (j) were met, and that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed termination of respondent-father’s parental rights. His rights were terminated primarily on the basis of his sexual abuse of the children’s half-sister. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that a statutory ground for termination was not met. It was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake in finding that respondent sexually abused a sibling of” the children. In addition, there “was clear and convincing evidence that there is a reasonable likelihood that [the children] would suffer from abuse in the foreseeable future if placed with respondent.” Under the circumstances, it concluded his abuse of the sibling was “highly probative of how he may treat” the children. The court also rejected his claim that termination was not in the children’s best interests. “Considering all of the record evidence, there was abundant support for the trial court’s finding that respondent could not provide a safe, stable, and permanent home for” the children. Further, the trial court’s “findings that neither a custody arrangement nor guardianship would sufficiently protect the children and that termination was the best means for adequately protecting [them] from the continuing threat of harm from abuse, were supported by the evidence that the” children’s mother “did not have any concerns about respondent despite his abuse of his own child.”