§§ 19b(3)(b)(i), (j), (k)(ii), & (k)(ix); Sexual abuse; Reasonable reunification efforts; Child’s best interests

The court held that §§ (b)(i), (j), (k)(ii), and (k)(ix) existed. Also, because the trial court found that aggravated circumstances existed, the DHHS was not obligated to make reasonable efforts to reunify respondent-father with his child, E. Finally, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination of his parental rights was in E’s best interests. He contended “that the trial court erred by finding that sufficient evidence was introduced to warrant termination of his parental rights under” §§ (b)(i), (j), (k)(ii), and (k)(ix) because the allegations of sexual abuse were false. As to § (b)(i), E “testified that respondent attempted to penetrate her vagina with his penis, put his penis on her wrist, and told her to suck his penis while he drove her home. [E] disclosed this abuse to her therapist and later to CPS workers. In the clinical evaluation, [E] told interviewers that she thought respondent ‘might do it again.’ The trial court" determined her testimony was “credible. The sexual abuse occurred shortly after respondent began visiting with [E], supporting the conclusion that if he were to resume contact with [her], there is a reasonable likelihood that she would suffer similar abuse by respondent in the foreseeable future.” Thus, the trial court did not err by finding termination was warranted under § (j). “In the clinical evaluation, [E] told interviewers that she thought respondent ‘might do it again.’ [E’s] credible allegations of sexual abuse demonstrate a reasonable likelihood, based on respondent’s conduct, that respondent would sexually abuse [E] if she continued visiting him.” Also, the court noted that E “testified that respondent attempted to penetrate her vagina with his penis and attempted to compel her to perform fellatio on him. [E’s] description of respondent’s actions meets the definition of sexual abuse involving attempted penetration." Thus, the court concluded “the trial court did not clearly err when it found clear and convincing evidence to terminate his parental rights under” §§ (k)(ii) and (k)(ix). Affirmed.