in Re Balli Minors, 336103

Children removed after respondent allegedly sexually assaulted a 13-year-old in the children’s presence and police found a hard drive with hundreds of child pornography images and videos.
Respondent was charged, pled guilty to possession of child sexually abusive material, and received a multi-year prison sentence.
Therapists diagnosed both children with adjustment disorder and anxiety, testified the children improved after removal, would likely regress if returned, and needed permanency.
Petitioner sought termination of respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j); the trial court found (g) proven by clear and convincing evidence and terminated rights.
Respondent appealed, arguing insufficient proof under (g) and that the court failed to consider the children’s placement with their biological mother in the best-interests analysis.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) was proven by clear and convincing evidence	Evidence of sexual assault, child porn, criminal convictions, and children’s trauma shows respondent failed to provide proper care and won’t within a reasonable time	Evidence insufficient to meet clear-and-convincing standard	Court: (g) proven; termination not clearly erroneous
Whether termination was in children’s best interests	Children’s bond, need for permanency, improved welfare in removal support termination	Trial court failed to consider relative placement (mother) when assessing best interests	Court: Best-interests finding affirmed; mother is not a statutory “relative” under MCL 712A.13a(1)(j) and court wasn’t required to treat her placement as relative placement
Whether court’s failure to address placement with mother requires reversal	Placement with a relative can matter, but mother is not a statutorily defined relative	Placement with mother should weigh against termination	Court: In light of In re Schadler, mother is not a "relative" for purposes of the statute; no reversible error
Standing to challenge guardian ad litem’s effectiveness	GAL representation is proper; parent lacks standing to raise ineffective-assistance claim on children’s behalf	Respondent argued GAL’s representation was ineffective	Court: Rejects respondent’s standing to raise that claim (bound by precedent)

In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (discusses burden and clear-and-convincing standard for termination)
In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (defines clear-error standard on appellate review)
In re Schadler, 315 Mich. App. 406 (holds biological mother is not a statutory “relative” under MCL 712A.13a)
In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (placement with relatives as factor in best-interests analysis)
In re Laster, 303 Mich. App. 485 (addresses alternative statutory grounds when one ground is dispositive)
In re EP, 234 Mich. App. 582 (parent lacks standing to claim ineffective assistance of counsel on behalf of children)
In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich. 341 (overruled on other grounds but cited regarding standing precedent)
Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 473 Mich. 562 (statutory interpretation; courts defer to clear statutory language)
Lewis v. DAIIE, 426 Mich. 93 (similar principle on statutory construction)