Termination of parental rights; Best interests of the children; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Olive/Metts Minors

Holding that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed termination of respondent-father’s parental rights. His rights were terminated on the basis of his sexual abuse of the half sibling of two of his children. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that termination was not in the children’s best interests. “The trial court acknowledged that respondent had a bond with each of the children, but found” he posed a risk to them based on his conduct. It found he was “‘so lacking in insight, maturity, guidance and judgment, that he [was] not in a position to parent. These deficits in parenting ability’” outweighed the bonds that were present. The trial court also recognized that the children were placed with “non-respondent mothers, but concluded that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.” In addition, experts opined that it might take one to two years to reduce the risk he posed to the children, but, in the meantime, they “would be expected to wait, in limbo. As the trial court recognized, that time frame is ‘a considerable period of time to wait to see if [respondent] changes.’” Their need for permanence and stability outweighed any bond that may have existed with respondent. “The children cannot wait in limbo for positive changes to potentially manifest.”