Rеspondent Cheryl Hall appeals as of right a May 20, 1996, order of the Kent County Probate Court terminating her parental rights to Quincy Hall-Smith, bom October 14, 1990, pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) (conditiоns that led to the adjudication continue to exist) and MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) (neglect). We affirm.
On appeal, respondent argues that the probate court “improperly terminate[d]” hеr parental rights to Quincy. Specifically, respondent argues that petitioner, the Department of Social Services, failed to prove that respondent would not be able to care for Quincy within a reasonable time, and further failed to prove that termination would be in Quincy’s best interest. We find respondent’s argument to be without merit.
Before January 1, 1995, once a probate court found that at least one stаtutory ground for termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence, thе court’s decision to terminate was discretionary. MCL 712A.19b(3); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3);
In re Jackson,
*472
If the court finds that there arе grounds for termination of parental rights, the court shall order termination of parental rights and order that additional efforts for reunification of the child with the parent shall not be made, unless the court finds that termination of parental rights to the child is clearly not in the child’s best interests.
In construing statutory language to determine legislative intent, a court must presume that the Legislature intended the meaning plainly expressed in the body of the statute,
In re Austin Estate,
Given the Legislature’s use of the words “shall” and “unless” in the above provision, we interpret the above statute to now create a mandаtory presumption that can only be rebutted by a showing that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interest. If no such showing is made and a statutory ground for termination has been established, we believe that the trial court is without discretion and must terminate parental rights. Accordingly, we believe that a trial court’s now nondiscretionary decision regarding termination is reviewed in its entirety for clear error.
Although the burden of proof remains with the petitioner to show that a statutory ground for termination has been met by clear and convincing evidence, MCR
*473
5.974(A)(3) and (F)(3), we believe that the burden of going forward with evidencе that termination is clearly not in a child’s best interest rests with the respondent. In
In re Miller,
Although the burden of proof is on the party seeking to terminate parental rights, the burden of going forward with the evidence is on the parent or parents. A parent who fails to produce any evidence risks an adverse ruling on the evidence presented, but one who рroduces some indication that the family situation has improved has met the burden of going forward. Meeting the burden of production, however, does not mean that the parent has necessarily prevailed. [Citations omitted.]
Similarly, we believe that oncе a statutory ground for termination has been met by clear and convincing evidencе, the language of MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5) requires a parent to put forth at least some evidence that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interest. Absent any evidence addressing this issue by the parent, termination of parental rights is mandatory.
In this case, we find that the trial cоurt did not clearly err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to Quincy. Ample evidencе of respondent’s unfitness as a parent was presented at the termination hearing such that we find no error in the trial court’s determi *474 nation that clear and convincing еvidence supported the termination of respondent’s parental rights pursuant to subsections 3(c)(i) and (g). Furthermore, because respondent failed to put forth evidеnce from which the trial court could conclude that termination was clearly not in Quincy’s best interest, the trial court’s decision to terminate respondent’s parental rights complied with the requirements of MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27. 3178(598.19b)(5), and we find no clear error in that decision.
Affirmed.