Child’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); Doctrine of anticipatory neglect; Reasonable reunification efforts

Concluding that the trial “court did not clearly err by finding that termination” was in the child’s (ZLR) best interests, the court affirmed. Respondent-father argued “that he should have been afforded the opportunity to complete a parent-agency treatment plan before his parental rights were terminated.” The court noted that another one of his children, JBS, “was approximately one year old when he suffered permanently disabling, nearly fatal brain injuries. The evidence presented during a prior termination proceeding led the [trial] court to find that JBS sustained his injuries while in respondent’s care as either a direct result of respondent violently shaking him or respondent’s neglect in allowing such harm to occur. Respondent was the suspected perpetrator of the abuse such that aggravated circumstances existed under MCL 722.638(1)(a)(iii), and DHHS was not required to make reasonable efforts to reunite respondent with ZLR.” Respondent also argued “that the trial court clearly erred by finding that termination served ZLR’s best interests, and in doing so, erroneously applied the doctrine of anticipatory neglect.” The court again disagreed. It noted that he lacked a strong bond with ZLR. Because he “had little, if any, recent contact with ZLR, the trial court appropriately weighed this factor in favor of termination.” In addition, the court held that in “weighing ZLR’s best interests, the trial court properly considered his relative placement and nonetheless concluded that termination served ZLR’s best interests.” Further, it found that “the trial court correctly applied the doctrine of anticipatory neglect in concluding that termination served ZLR’s best interests.”