Court Opinion

ID: 9927100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 06:05:16.453091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:47.919200
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
               revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                       STATE OF MICHIGAN

                          COURT OF APPEALS

                                                                UNPUBLISHED
In re D D MOORE, Minor.                                         January 25, 2024

                                                                No. 365146
                                                                Wayne Circuit Court
                                                                Family Division
                                                                LC No. 22-000161-NA

In re N L THOMAS, Minor.                                        No. 365147
                                                                Wayne Circuit Court
                                                                Family Division
                                                                LC No. 22-000142-NA

In re A D GRAYS, Minor.                                         No. 365148
                                                                Wayne Circuit Court
                                                                Family Division
                                                                LC No. 22-000146-NA

In re D D L THOMAS, Minor.                                      No. 365149
                                                                Wayne Circuit Court
                                                                Family Division
                                                                LC No. 22-000159-NA

In re M D M THOMAS, Minor.                                      No. 365150
                                                                Wayne Circuit Court
                                                                Family Division
                                                                LC No. 22-000160-NA

                                            -1-
Before: GADOLA, C.J., and MURRAY and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        In these five consolidated appeals,1 respondent-father appeals as of right the orders
terminating his parental rights to his five minor children: DDM, NLT, ADG, DDLT, and MDMT,
under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) (sibling of the child has suffered sexual abuse caused by the parent),
(g) (parent, although financially able to do so, fails to provide proper care or custody), and (j)
(reasonable likelihood child will be harmed if returned to the home of the parent).2 Although this
is a close case, because of the applicable standard of review, we affirm.

                                         I. BACKGROUND

        Respondent-father is the father of the children. Each child has a different mother: DDM’s
mother is D. Moore; NLT’s mother is M. Arrington; ADG’s mother is K. Grays; DDLT’s mother
is G. McClendon-Travis; and MDMT’s mother is B. Dozier. In November 2021, petitioner was
notified of allegations that respondent-father sexually abused NLT’s half-sister, LMM;
respondent-father is not LMM’s father. According to LMM, the abuse began in October 2021,
when she was six years old, and occurred when she stayed with NLT at respondent-father’s home
with NLT, DDLT, and MDMT. In addition to the sexual abuse allegations, respondent-father has
a criminal history including arrests for larceny, MCL 750.356, and obstructing justice, MCL
750.479, a charge for felony forgery, MCL 750.248, and is on probation for carrying a concealed
weapon, MCL 750.227.

         Petitioner filed individual petitions requesting the trial court take jurisdiction over the
children under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) (parent when able to do so neglects to provide proper or
necessary support) and (2) (the home because of neglect, criminality, or depravity on the part of
the parent is an unfit place to live), and terminate respondent-father’s parental rights to the children
under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (j), (k)(ii) (parent abused the sibling of the child and the abuse
included criminal sexual conduct involving attempted penetration or assault with intent to
penetrate), and (k)(ix) (parent abused the sibling of the child and the abuse included sexual abuse
as that term is defined in section 2 of the child protection law). The petitions allege it is contrary
to the children’s welfare to remain in respondent-father’s care because he sexually abused LMM,
placing the children at risk for threatened harm. The petition regarding DDM also alleges
respondent-father abandoned DDM because respondent-father had not visited him since shortly
after his birth and did not financially support him. Petitioner recommended placing DDM, NLT,
ADG, and MDMT with their respective mothers; petitioner did not recommend DDLT be placed
with McClendon-Travis because it also sought termination of her parental rights because of
unsuitable housing. The petitions also allege respondent-father is an alcoholic.

1
 In re D D Moore, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals entered March 7, 2023 (Docket Nos.
365146; 365147; 365148; 364149; 365150).
2
  When referencing DDM, NLT, ADG, DDLT, and MDMT collectively, we will refer to them as
“the children.”

                                                  -2-
        In February 2022, the trial court separately held preliminary hearings regarding the
children. Respondent-father waived a finding of probable cause and made a judge demand, and
the trial court authorized the petitions. Petitioner’s employee, Leslie Tillman, requested the
children be removed from respondent-father’s care because his abuse of LMM placed them at risk
of harm, and recommended supervised parenting time with respondent-father. Tillman stated
DDLT and NLT resided in respondent-father’s home at the time the alleged sexual abuse of LMM
took place. The trial court authorized the petitions, removed the children from respondent-father’s
care, and ordered supervised parenting time with respondent-father.

        During the adjudication, respondent-father, after being advised of his rights, entered a no-
contest plea to the petitions and waived his right to a trial. As part of the factual basis underlying
the plea, the trial court admitted a CPS investigative report detailing respondent-father’s sexual
abuse of LMM. The trial court accepted respondent-father’s plea and found there was clear and
convincing evidence to establish grounds for jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2b(1) and (2) based on
respondent-father’s sexual abuse of LMM, and statutory grounds for termination of respondent-
father’s parental rights. At the end of the hearing, respondent-father’s counsel indicated DDM,
NLT, ADG, and MDMT had not been brought to parenting time by their mothers, and asked the
trial court to order the mothers to comply. Petitioner and the guardian ad litem did not object, and
indicated they would speak with the mothers to ensure respondent-father would have his court-
ordered supervised parenting time. After the hearing, the trial court entered orders of the
adjudication findings, stating based on respondent-father’s no contest plea, there were statutory
grounds to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), and
ordered respondent-father to partake in a best interest evaluation at Family Assessment Services.
The orders regarding DDM, NLT, ADG, and MDMT state: “Non-respondent mother to cooperate
with agency’s efforts to facilitate parenting time.” The order regarding DDLT indicates he was
made a temporary court ward.3

         In September 2022, the trial court held joint dispositional reviews and best interest
hearings. The trial court admitted a report from the Clinic for Child Study. Respondent-father
testified he recently lost his employment, but indicated he would likely have employment in
October 2022. Respondent-father asserted having housing, healthy bonds with his children, and
that he financially provided for them. However, respondent-father also admitted he had not seen
DDM since 2017, which he attributed to Moore not allowing him to see DDM. Respondent-father
stated he visited with NLT “every weekend to every other weekend,” and they had a healthy
relationship because NLT was always “excited to see me. He never want[s] to leave me whenever
it’s time for him to go home.” Addressing ADG, respondent-father stated they had a good bond
and communicated frequently over the phone. Respondent-father stated he and MDMT had a
healthy relationship and they talk “almost every day.” Discussing DDLT, respondent-father stated
DDLT stayed with him for “[a] little over four years,” during which he brought DDLT to school
daily, helped with homework, and provided clothing and food. On cross-examination, respondent-

3
  In October 2022, the trial court entered amended orders of adjudication, adding “statutory
grounds [under] MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j) and [adding] factual findings to support termination
of parental rights.” The orders of adjudication added specific factual findings regarding the abuse
of LMM. All other aspects of the orders remain the same.

                                                 -3-
father testified that because he had not seen DDM since 2017, he attempted to enforce parenting
time “several times,” through the Friend of the Court. Respondent-father stated he was consistent
with parenting time for all of his children, however, his children had not been consistently brought
for parenting time. Respondent-father denied sexually abusing LMM, but admitted he entered a
plea supporting the allegations against him. Because of technical issues, the best interest hearings
were adjourned.

         In October 2022, the trial court held the second best interests hearings. Respondent-father
testified again, he entered a no contest plea because he “didn’t want to put [LMM] in a position to
where something like this can mess with her for the rest of her life[.]” Respondent-father denied
drinking alcohol excessively or being an alcoholic. Despite attending all supervised parenting
times, respondent-father stated Arrington and Moore never brought NLT and DDM, Grays only
brought ADG once, and Dozier brought MDMT three times. Respondent-father claimed he is
bonded with his children, loves them, and wants an opportunity to be in their lives. Respondent-
father had not been criminally charged for his alleged abuse of LMM and was cooperating with
the police investigation.

        In December 2022, respondent-father filed an emergency motion to enforce the parenting
time orders regarding DDM, NLT, and MDMT. Respondent-father claimed, despite the trial
court’s orders, that DDM, NLT, and MDMT were not attending parenting time because Moore,
Arrington, and Dozier failed to bring them. The guardian ad litem and petitioner requested the
trial court either suspend parenting time until it is decided whether it would terminate respondent-
father’s parental rights or hold its decision regarding respondent-father’s motion in abeyance. The
trial court ordered a referral “to be made to Assured Family Services for a parenting time
evaluation,” and continued respondent-father’s motion.

        During the final best interests hearing, petitioner claimed it would be in the best interests
of the children to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights based on the Best Interest Clinic
report. The guardian ad litem agreed termination was in the best interests of the children because
of respondent-father’s abuse of LMM. Respondent-father argued termination was not in the best
interests of the children because “to terminate the father’s rights today would sanction [the]
behaviors of the mothers,” who ignored the orders for parenting time. Because there was no
testimony the interactions were harmful to the children and respondent-father was not given an
opportunity to “exhibit his parenting techniques,” respondent-father argued the trial court should
“take into consideration . . . [respondent-father’s] lack of opportunity . . . to visit his children under
the circumstances.”

        The trial court found that despite any bond between respondent-father and his children and
the children’s placement with relatives, termination was in the children’s best interests because of
the aggravating circumstance of respondent-father’s sexual abuse of LMM, his history of alcohol
abuse, criminal history, his current probation for carrying a concealed weapon conviction, and the
possibility of future sexual abuse and neglect. Addressing DDM, NLT, and MDMT, the trial court
found respondent-father was absent in their lives and there had been no contact between
respondent-father and DDM, NLT, and MDMT, however, there was a possibility of future sexual
abuse and continuing neglect. Discussing ADG, the trial court found any bond between ADG and
respondent-father was outweighed by the risk of harm presented by respondent-father. Regarding
DDLT, the trial court stated: “The child is placed with paternal grandparent(s), which is usually a

                                                   -4-
factor that weighs against termination; however, the substantial risk of harm that the father presents
to the child . . . far outweighs the consideration of relative placement.” DDM, NLT, ADG, and
MDMT were all placed in the care of their respective mothers, while DDLT was placed with
petitioner for care and supervision. The order also dismissed as moot respondent-father’s
emergency motion for parenting time. This appeal followed.

                                      II. BEST INTERESTS

        Respondent-father argues the trial court improperly terminated his parental rights because
it was not in the best interests of the children.

                                 A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

        Termination of parental rights requires findings of statutory grounds for termination and
that termination is in a child’s best interests. In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35, 40; 823
NW2d 144 (2012). Whether termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests must be
proven by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182
(2013). We review a trial court’s findings of fact in termination proceedings, including whether
termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interest, for clear error. In re White, 303 Mich
App 701, 713; 846 NW2d 61 (2014). A trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous if a
reviewing court is “definitely and firmly convinced that it made a mistake.” In re Keillor, 325
Mich App 80, 85; 923 NW2d 617 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “This Court
gives deference to a trial court’s special opportunity to judge the weight of the evidence and the
credibility of the witnesses who appear before it.” In re TK, 306 Mich App 698, 710; 859 NW2d
208 (2014) (citation omitted).

                                          B. ANALYSIS

       “ ‘If the court finds that there are grounds for termination of parental rights and that
termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests, the court shall order termination of
parental rights . . . .’ ” In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App at 42, quoting MCL 712A.19b(5).
On appeal, respondent-father does not contest whether statutory grounds for termination were
adequately established; instead, respondent-father challenges whether termination was in the
children’s best interests.

       In determining whether termination is in a child’s best interests:

       [T]he focus at the best-interest stage has always been on the child, not the parent.
       In assessing whether termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests, the
       trial court should weigh all evidence available to it. Courts may consider such
       factors 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. Other considerations include the length of time the child
       was in care, the likelihood that the child could be returned to her parents’ home
       within the foreseeable future, if at all, and compliance with the case service plan.

                                                 -5-
       [In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson Minors, 311 Mich App 49, 63-64; 874 NW2d 205
       (2015) (quotation marks and citations omitted).]4

         “The trial court may also consider a parent’s history of domestic violence . . . the parent’s
visitation history with the child, the child[]’s well-being while in care, and the possibility of
adoption.” In re White, 303 Mich App at 714. The trial court should also evaluate the risk of harm
a child might face if returned to the parent’s care. See In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120, 140-
142; 809 NW2d 412 (2011). Further, the “doctrine of anticipatory neglect allows for an inference
that a parent’s treatment of one child is probative of how that parent may treat other children.” In
re Kellogg, 331 Mich App 249, 259; 952 NW2d 544 (2020). This applies even when the abused
child is a half-sibling of the respondent-parent’s child. See In re Mota, 334 Mich App 300, 322-
323; 964 NW2d 881 (2020). “However, the probative value of such an inference is decreased by
differences between the children, such as age . . . .” In re Kellogg, 331 Mich App at 259.
“[B]ecause a child’s placement with relatives weighs against termination under MCL
712A.19a(6)(a), the fact that a child is living with relatives when the case proceeds to termination
is a factor to be considered in determining whether termination is in the child’s best interests.” In
re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App at 43 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The trial court
must “decide the best interests of each child individually.” Id. at 42.

        As background to whether the trial court erred in determining that termination of parental
rights was in the best interests of each child, we emphasize the following. The record shows
respondent-father was employed, had suitable housing, open child support cases for the children,
and provided food, clothing, and financial and medical care for them. The record also shows
respondent-father pleaded no contest to LMM’s allegations of sexual abuse, which included
respondent-father sexually abusing LMM on over five occasions where he would wait until his
other children were asleep, bring LMM into his bed while naked, and instruct LMM to “squeeze
his front part.” Respondent-father denied drinking alcohol excessively or having an alcohol
problem. However, in the Best Interest Clinic report, he contradicted himself when reporting a
history of drinking alcohol daily from ages 23 to 32. Respondent-father has a criminal history,
and he “indicated that he is [currently] on probation after being arrested for Carrying a Weapon.”

4
  Generally, reasonable efforts to reunify the child and family must be made except when cases
involve aggravated circumstances under MCL 712A.19a(2). In re Mason, 486 Mich 142, 152; 782
NW2d 747 (2010). Under MCL 712A.19a(2)(a), reasonable efforts to reunify the child do not
have to be made if “[t]here is a judicial determination that the parent has subjected the child to
aggravated circumstances as provided in section 18(1) and (2) of the child protection law, 1975
PA 238, MCL 722.638.” MCL 722.638 states, in part: “The department determines that a parent
. . . has abused the . . . sibling of the child and the abuse included . . . [c]riminal sexual conduct
involving penetration, attempted penetration, or assault with intent to penetrate.” MCL
722.638(1)(a)(ii). Although respondent-father indicated he was interested in completing a service
plan, the trial court found there were aggravating circumstances present because respondent-father
sexually abused LMM. As such, petitioner was not required to make reasonable efforts towards
reunification.

                                                 -6-
Despite indicating that he had no history of domestic violence with the mothers of his children,
Moore claimed he was physically abusive toward her when they were together.

        Turning to the argument, respondent-father argues that the trial court incorrectly found
termination was in the best interests of his children because the trial court did not consider the
mothers’ failure to bring the children for parenting time, which negatively affected respondent-
father’s bond with his children. Although it is true the mothers did not comply with the parenting
time orders, the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that termination was in the best interests
of the children.

                                                DDM

        Respondent-father admitted he had not seen DDM since 2017, when he was six months
old, and did not have emotional ties to DDM. Although respondent-father attributed this to
Moore’s refusal to allow respondent-father parenting time with DDM, this evidence supports the
trial court’s finding that respondent-father lacked a bond with DDM and did not provide him with
much, if any, support. Because of this evidence, in addition to respondent-father’s sexual abuse
of LMM, respondent-father’s history of alcohol abuse, and criminal history, the record evidence
supports the trial court’s finding that termination was in DDM’s best interests. The trial court did
not err by terminating respondent-father’s parental rights to DDM.

                                                NLT

       The record shows LMM was NLT’s half-sister, and NLT was present in the home when
respondent-father sexually abused LMM. Although respondent-father stated NLT visited with
him “every weekend to every other weekend,” and they had a healthy relationship, under the
doctrine of anticipatory neglect, respondent-father’s sexual abuse of LMM is probative of how he
would treat NLT, especially considering NLT is similar in age to LMM when respondent-father
began sexually abusing her. See In re Kellogg, 331 Mich App at 259; In re MOTA, 334 Mich App
at 322-323. The trial court did not clearly err by finding termination was in NLT’s best interests.

                                                ADG

        Although respondent-father reported having a strong bond with ADG and stated they
communicated frequently on the phone, Grays reported respondent-father was absent for most of
ADG’s life. Respondent-father’s absence in ADG’s life, sexual abuse of LMM, criminal history,
and history of alcohol abuse support the trial court’s finding that termination was in ADG’s best
interests. Further, because the trial court found the risk of harm to ADG outweighed any bond
with respondent-father, and this Court “gives deference to a trial court’s special opportunity to
judge the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses who appear before it,” In re
TK, 306 Mich App at 710, the trial court did not clearly err by finding it was in ADG’s best interests
to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights.

                                               DDLT

        Respondent-father stated he had a strong bond with DDLT, who stayed with him for “[a]
little over four years,” during which time he brought DDLT to school daily, helped with
homework, and provided clothing and food. However, respondent-father sexually abused LMM

                                                 -7-
while DDLT was staying with respondent-father. Because respondent-father sexually abused
LMM while DDLT was in the home, and he has a criminal history and history of alcohol abuse,
the trial court did not clearly err by finding termination was in DDLT’s best interests. Further,
because the trial court expressly found that the risk of harm to DDLT outweighed any bond with
respondent-father, and considered DDLT’s placement with his paternal grandmother, In re TK,
306 Mich App at 710, the trial court did not clearly err by terminating respondent-father’s parental
rights to DDLT.

                                             MDMT

        Respondent-father stated he and MDMT had a healthy relationship and a strong emotional
bond, and they talked “almost every day.” Dozier did “not believe the [sexual abuse] allegations
and expressed [feeling] comfortable with her son having contact with [respondent-father].” During
the Best Interest Clinic evaluation, Carter observed respondent-father and MDMT interact, stating:
“[I]t appeared that their interactions were appropriate as they seemed very happy and excited to
spend time together. It was very evident that they shared in a closely attached and affectionate
relationship as they communicated well and got along appropriately with each other.” In the order
terminating respondent-father’s parental rights to MDMT, the trial court stated: “Father is absent
in his son’s life. There has been no contact between the father and the child, [MDMT.]” Based
on the record, this factual finding is inaccurate. However, during the best interests hearing, the
trial court clearly acknowledged respondent-father and MDMT had a bond, but found termination
was in MDMT’s best interests regardless of their bond because of respondent-father’s abuse of
LMM, his criminal history, and history of alcohol abuse. Further, applying the doctrine of
anticipatory neglect, because MDMT is similar in age to LMM when respondent-father sexually
abused her, we cannot conclude that the trial court clearly erred in finding termination was in
MDMT’s best interests. As such, while the trial court’s order may have inaccurately characterized
the relationship between respondent-father and MDMT, the record otherwise supports the trial
court’s finding. And because this Court gives deference to the trial court’s determination that any
bond was outweighed by respondent-father’s sexual abuse of LMM, respondent-father is not
entitled to relief on appeal.
                                       III. CONCLUSION

        Because the trial court did not clearly err by finding termination was in the best interests
of the children, we affirm.

                                                             /s/ Michael F. Gadola
                                                             /s/ Christopher M. Murray
                                                             /s/ Christopher P. Yates

                                                -8-