Jurisdiction over the children under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2); Doctrine of anticipatory neglect; Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(i); Children’s best interests

The court concluded that the trial court did not clearly err by finding that the DHHS “established by a preponderance of the evidence statutory grounds to exercise jurisdiction over the children” AT and DT under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). Also, the court held that statutory grounds for termination existed under § (i) and the “trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination was in the children’s best interests.” Respondent-father argued that “the trial court’s jurisdictional finding was clearly erroneous because” the mother (B) “had custody over the children, no evidence was presented that respondent abused the children, and [B’s other child] DG regarded respondent as a stepfather.” These arguments were unpersuasive. It was true that B “testified that she had sole custody over the children by virtue of a Friend of the Court order. However, she also testified that respondent was granted visitation with the children, and the children resided with respondent for a year from 2020 to 2021.” Moreover, DG “testified that the abuse occurred in the summer of 2020 or 2021 when both she and the children were staying at respondent’s home. Further, while no evidence was presented that respondent abused the children, ‘[i]n cases with multiple children, the doctrine of anticipatory neglect may apply to confer jurisdiction.’” The court concluded that the “trial court could properly find from respondent’s sexual abuse of DG while the children were present in the same room that the children were ‘subject to a substantial risk of harm to [their] mental well-being,’” and that respondent’s home, “‘by reason of neglect, cruelty, drunkenness, criminality, or depravity on the part of a parent . . . , is an unfit place for the [children] to live in[.]’” The court held that “the fact that DG regarded respondent as a stepfather increases the probative value of the anticipatory-neglect inference, as it demonstrates that DG was similarly situated to respondent’s own children when the abuse occurred.” The record evidence supported “the trial court’s findings, and respondent has failed to demonstrate that [it] clearly erred by finding statutory grounds to exercise jurisdiction over the children[.]” Also, the “trial court did not clearly err by finding that respondent sexually abused a sibling of the children, and there is a reasonable likelihood that the children will suffer from injury or abuse in the foreseeable future if placed with [him]. Respondent, therefore, has not demonstrated that the trial court clearly erred by finding clear and convincing evidence to support termination of his parental rights under” § (i). Affirmed.