in Re Waite Minors, 335613

Background

Two young daughters were removed after the older daughter was sexually and physically abused by respondent’s boyfriend, a convicted sex offender.
Respondent knew of his prior sexual-conduct conviction and agreed to a safety plan barring unsupervised contact but repeatedly allowed him unsupervised access to the children.
After charges, respondent continued extensive contact with the assailant, encouraged him to fight charges, and discussed plans to evade the case and move away with a child.
Psychological evaluations found respondent had dependency issues, impaired judgment in relationships, features of a personality disorder, and a poor prognosis for timely remediation; one psychologist estimated 2–5 years of treatment needed.
The trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) (failure to protect from sexual abuse) and (g) (failure to provide proper care), and found termination in the children’s best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) (failure to protect from sexual abuse)	Respondent failed to protect children from a known sex offender and repeatedly allowed unsupervised contact; reasonable likelihood of future harm existed	Respondent argued the trial court erred in assessing risk and in crediting one psychologist over another	Court: Affirmed — evidence showed respondent repeatedly failed to follow safety plan, facilitated contact, and posed a foreseeable risk of future harm
Whether termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care) was supported	Respondent placed children’s safety below her relationships and quickly entered a new relationship, showing no reasonable expectation she could provide proper care soon	Respondent disputed the characterization of new relationship and argued progress in therapy warranted more time	Court: Affirmed — respondent’s pattern of prioritizing relationships and mental-health barriers indicated she could not provide proper care within a reasonable time
Whether the trial court erred in weighing expert testimony and other evidence	Petitioner relied on a psychologist who evaluated family and concluded long treatment needed; argued court properly assessed credibility	Respondent asserted court should have credited more optimistic psychologist and therapist report; requested more time for further evaluation	Court: Affirmed — credibility determinations are for the factfinder; court reasonably credited the more comprehensive evaluation and found prognosis poor
Whether termination was contrary to children’s best interests	Petitioner argued children needed safety, permanency, and that respondent’s conduct and mental-health issues made reunification unlikely	Respondent argued bonds and therapy engagement warranted continuation or placement with father	Court: Affirmed — children’s trauma, safety concerns, respondent’s unwillingness to prioritize children, and low likelihood of safe reunification supported termination

Key Cases Cited

In re Beck, 488 Mich. 6 (parental-rights termination requires statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence and best-interest finding)
In re Ellis, 294 Mich. App. 30 (standard for termination appeal)
In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (clear-error review in termination cases)
In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (definition of clear error)
In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (trial court credibility determinations in termination cases)
Zeeland Farm Servs., Inc. v. JBL Enters., Inc., 219 Mich. App. 190 (credibility/province of factfinder)
In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (best-interest factors for termination)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (preponderance standard for best-interest finding)
In re Frey, 297 Mich. App. 242 (factors relevant to best-interest analysis)
In re VanDalen, 293 Mich. App. 120 (evidence child is unsafe with parent supports termination)
People v. Uphaus (On Remand), 278 Mich. App. 174 (trial court discretion on additional evidence/evaluations)
In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (consider placement with fit parent when assessing best interests)
In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (when separate best-interest analysis for each child is unnecessary)