-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

UNPUBLISHED In re BOWERS, Minors. March 28, 2017

No. 334253 Lenawee Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 15-000458-NA

Before: M. J. K ELLY , P.J., and M URPHY and R ONAYNE K RAUSE , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Respondent, G. Bowers, appeals as of right the trial court’s o rder terminating his parental rights to three of his minor ch ildren pursuant to MCL 712A.19b( 3)(k)( ix ) and (n)( i ). We affirm.

Respondent is the father of six children, JLB, TLB, TMB, JTB, SB, and ZB, with his late wife, RB, and the father of a seventh child, HB, with his girlf riend, CD. Petitioner filed a petition for permanent custody of the children based on allegat ions of physical a nd sexual abuse. Criminal proceedings were initiated, and respondent pleaded gui lty to fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520e(1)(a), and was sentenced to 16 to 24 months in prison. At the scheduled adjudication trial, res pondent released his parental rights to TLB and stipulated that his conviction provided a basis for the assumption of jurisdict ion over TMB, JTB, SB, ZB, and HB 1 and established a statutory basis for termination under MCL 71 2A.19b(3)(k)( ix ) and (n)( i ). Following a best-interest hearing, the trial court determined t hat termination of respondent’s parental rights was not in the b est interests of TMB and JTB, b ut was in the best interests of SB, ZB, and HB. See MCL 712A.19b(5); MCR 3.977(E)(4). Accordingly , the court terminated respondent’s parental rights as to only SB, ZB, and HB.

On appeal, respondent argues that the trial court erred in fin ding that termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of SB, ZB, and HB. I f a trial court finds that a single statutory ground for termination has been established by clear and convincing evidence and that it has been proved by a prepondera nce of the evidence that term ination of parental rights is in the best interests of a child, the court is mandated to terminate a respondent's parental rights to that child. MCL 712A.19b(3) and (5); In re Beck , 488 Mich 6, 10-11; 793 NW2d 562 (2010); In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013); In re Ellis , 294 Mich App 30, 32; 817

1 Given that he had reached the a ge of majority, the petition wa s dismissed with respect to JLB.-2- NW2d 111 (2011). There is no appellate challenge regarding the statutory grounds for termination. “This Court reviews for clear error the trial cou rt's ruling that . . . termination is in the children's best interests.” In re Hudson , 294 Mich App 261, 264; 817 NW2d 115 (2011); see also MCR 3.977(K). “A finding is clearly erroneous if, althoug h there is evidence to support it, we are left with a definite and f irm conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re HRC , 286 Mich App 444, 459; 781 NW2d 105 (2009). In applying the clear error standard in parental termination cases, “regard is to be given to the special opport unity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it.” In re Miller , 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The trial court must “state on the record or in writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law[,] [and] [b]rief, definite, and pertinent fi ndings and conclusions on contested matters are sufficient.” MCR 3.977(I)(1).

In regard to a child’s best interests, we place our focus on t he child rather than the parent. In re Moss , 301 Mich App at 87. The trial c ourt may consider such factor s as “the child’s bond to the parent, the parent’s parenting ability, the child’s need for permanency, stability, and finality, and the advantages of a foster home over the parent’s home.” In re Olive/Metts Minors

, 297 Mich App 35, 41-42; 823 NW2d 144 (2012) (citations omitted) . “The trial court may also consider a parent's history of domestic violence, the parent's compliance with his or her case service plan, the parent's visit ation history with the child, t he children's well-being while in care, and the possibility of adoption.” In re White , 303 Mich App 701, 714; 846 NW2d 61 (2014). In In re White

, id. at 715-716, this Court, construing In re Olive/Metts Minors , 297 Mich App 35; 823 NW2d 144 (2012), held:

We conclude that this Court's decision in In re Olive/Metts stands for the proposition that, if the best in terests of the individual child ren significantly differ, the trial court should address those differences when making it s determination of the children's best interests . It does not sta nd for the propos ition that the trial court errs if it fails to explicitly make individual and—in many case s—redundant factual findings concerning eac h child's best interests.

In this case, the trial court properly accounted for the diffe ring circumstances of each child, such as their placements and attachment to respondent. We agree with respondent that the possibility of adoption with respect to HB was not a relevant c onsideration, given that he remained at home with his mother, her parental rights were not terminated, and there was no indication that she had married someone who wished to adopt HB. Nevertheless, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests in light of respondent’s history of violence and abuse. It was undisputed that respondent had sexually abused TLB , and the trial court accepte d testimony that respondent had been sharing a bed with SB. Respondent admitted to a convictio n for domestic violence against RB, and the trial court credited testimony that respondent enga ged in domestic violence with CD. The trial court also found that t here was credible testimony sh owing that respondent employed harsh and improper physical puni shment, singling out some of th e children for unusual, severe, and potentially dangerous or harm ful forms of “discipline.” We have no basis to interfere with the trial court’s credibility assessments. In re Miller , 433 Mich at 337. And respondent fails to appreciate the principle that how a parent treats one child is probative of how that parent may treat the child’s siblings. In re AH , 245 Mich App 77, 84; 627 NW2d 33 (2001). The evidence created compelling concerns for t he safety and well-being of th e children at issue here,-3- regardless of the strength of t he bond between respondent and t wo of the children, SB and ZB. The trial court carefully and t houghtfully considered and exami ned most of the factors recited above relative to determining a ch ild’s best interests. In sum , the trial court did not clearly err in terminating respondent’s parent al rights to the children.

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael J. Kelly /s/ William B. Murphy /s/ Amy Ronayne Krause