Exercise of jurisdiction; MCL 712A.2(b); Plea to the allegations in a petition; MCR 3.971(D); Plea withdrawal; Children’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Atchley

The court held that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over both the petitions at issue, and did not plainly err in accepting respondent-father’s “no-contest plea because it was made knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily.” Further, the record supported its finding that terminating his parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Thus, the court affirmed the termination order. He asserted the trial court erred by exercising jurisdiction as to “the supplemental petition for permanent custody, as opposed to finding jurisdiction only for the original petition for temporary custody filed by DHHS.” The court disagreed. Both petitions “included identical factual allegations that respondent had sexually abused” one of the children (S). The trial court properly informed him “of his advice of rights and of the possible dispositional outcomes of each petition: that [he] would be ordered to complete a service plan or that he could face termination of his parental rights. [He] was expressly informed that his plea was only for jurisdiction and had nothing to do with disposition. Further, [he] was aware that a dispositional hearing on statutory grounds and best interests, that could result in termination, would take place the next day. The trial court relied on the factual allegations to which respondent pled to support its finding of jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b). Whether [he] believed he was pleading no contest to the allegations of one petition or the other was irrelevant, because it was the allegations to which he pled, and the allegations that supported the trial court’s establishment of jurisdiction were the same for both petitions. Once [its] jurisdiction over the children and respondent’s parental rights was established, it had the power to move into the dispositional phase and determine whether termination” was appropriate. The court also found he failed to show “any plain error in the plea-taking process that warrants withdrawal of his plea.” As to the children’s best interests, the trial court found S’s “testimony detailing respondent’s sexual abuse to be credible[.]” It also heard testimony that S has panic attacks and both children “were diagnosed with mental health disorders. There was testimony that neither child has a bond with respondent, who they have not had contact with for more than three years. The trial court properly determined” they deserved stability and permanence, which they would not have absent termination.