Termination under § 19b(3)(j); Doctrine of anticipatory neglect; Children's best interests

The court held that the trial “court did not clearly err by finding by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reasonable risk RS, RH, and IF would be harmed if returned to [respondent-father.] Also, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination of parental rights was in” their best interests. Respondent’s primary stance was “that the trial court clearly erred by believing RS’s and BP’s allegations of sexual abuse.” This argument was without merit. “The girls both testified openly, unambiguously, and unequivocally about the abuse to which respondent subjected them.” The trial court found them “credible, and respondent has presented us with nothing that overcomes the deference owed to this finding.” Respondent emphasized “the delays in disclosure, but this argument was refuted by expert testimony regarding the behavior of child sexual abuse victims. Further, RS and BP both testified clearly, while respondent’s testimony was evasive, tangential, and bordering on chaotic.” Respondent took “exception to the trial court’s application of the doctrine of anticipatory neglect.” The court noted that the “trial court acknowledged that RH and IF are boys, but it did not find this difference to outweigh the other circumstances. First, respondent threatened to sexually assault IF when he was assaulting BP. Second, RH and IF are now similarly aged to RS and BP at the time respondent abused them. Third, respondent has refused to accept any responsibility for his actions and instead insisted that his accusers were lying. Fourth, respondent’s primary source of support is his mother, and she demonstrated a propensity for enabling and avoidance. Fifth, RS testified that she believed respondent posed a danger to any children. Finally, these differences are not germane to the facts that respondent offered to give BP methamphetamine and has a history of domestic violence; both facts also suggest a risk of harm if any children are returned to respondent.”