Tender-years hearing; Reliability of a statement; MCR 3.972(C)(2)(a); In re Archer; Videorecording; MCL 712A.17b(5); Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (j), & (k)(iii); §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii), (h), & (m); § 19b(3)(c)(i); Children’s best interests; Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC)

In Docket No. 370510, respondent-KS (mother) failed to establish any errors warranting reversal as to “the tender-years hearing, the statutory grounds for termination, or best interests” as to JV, SZ, and BS. In Docket No. 370513, respondent-ZZ (father) raised the same meritless arguments as to SZ. In Docket No. 370511, respondent-JVS (father) failed to establish any errors warranting reversal as to the statutory grounds for termination as to JV. In Docket No. 370694, respondent-NW (father) failed to establish any errors warranting reversal as to the statutory grounds for termination or best interests as to BS. KS and ZZ argued that the trial court erred by admitting testimony as to statements that the children made to other people. They contended that the 5/23 “pretrial hearing was improper because the [trial] court did not take testimony or properly review evidence concerning the trustworthiness of the children’s statements.” The record established that the trial “court made its decision” as to reliability with Archer’s guidance. “KS and ZZ seem to imply that the people to whom the statements were made needed to testify at the tender-years hearing, but the court rule does not require as much. Rather, it merely requires that the court conduct a hearing prior to trial.” They also argued that the trial court erred by not viewing the CAC recording. The court held that the “failure to admit the CAC recordings at the first tender-years hearing was erroneous. However, the error was harmless because the [trial] court subsequently viewed the 10 hours of recordings and ruled anew on the motion to admit the children’s statements.” The court concluded that it was “not inconsistent with substantial justice to refrain from reversing the trial court’s termination orders on the basis of this issue given that [it] did eventually view the recordings.” KS and ZZ argued that the DHHS failed to establish §§ (b)(i), (g), (j), and (k)(iii). The court held that the “evidence of pervasive and severe abuse perpetrated by both KS and ZZ against all three children overwhelmingly established each of these grounds for termination. This case initially came to CPS on the basis of allegations that ZZ taped and chained BS to a chair in his automobile body shop. It came to light that ZZ also put BS in a garbage can in the bed of a pickup truck and then hoisted the truck up on a vehicle lift. Further, ZZ dragged JV across the floor of the body shop, causing scratches on his back. As the case progressed, evidence was uncovered regarding numerous instances of physical abuse by both KS and ZZ.” In addition, there was “evidence of an ongoing pattern of sexual abuse perpetrated by KS and ZZ against all three children.” Affirmed.