Background
Respondent-father lived with nonrespondent-mother and four children: CBL, LAL, and MLFL (his biological children) and AS, their cognitively impaired and developmentally delayed half-sister, whom respondent treated as a father figure. Beginning when AS was eleven years old, respondent sexually abused her on multiple occasions while the mother was at work — digitally penetrating her on one occasion and compelling her to touch herself on five others. He also struck her on at least one occasion. AS disclosed the abuse to her maternal aunt in April 2024, prompting a forensic interview and a CPS referral.
In July 2024, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services petitioned to terminate respondent’s parental rights to CBL, LAL, and MLFL at initial disposition. A combined adjudication and termination hearing was held in May 2025. The trial court admitted AS’s forensic interview statements through the interviewer’s testimony under MCR 3.972(C)(2), found AS’s account highly credible, and rejected respondent’s claim that the allegations were fabricated through coaching — noting that AS’s cognitive limitations made successful coaching of a false forensic account unlikely. The court found clear and convincing evidence supporting termination under five statutory grounds, including MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (j), (k)(ii), and (k)(ix).
A best-interests hearing followed in August 2025. A forensic family clinician testified that respondent had not accepted responsibility for his actions. Respondent, his brother, and nonrespondent-mother testified in favor of preserving the parent-child relationship, pointing to respondent’s appropriate conduct during parenting time and his strong bond with the children. The trial court nonetheless found termination to be in the best interests of all three children, and respondent appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no clear error in the trial court’s best-interests determination. The panel acknowledged factors that weighed against termination — including the acknowledged parental bond, respondent’s appropriate behavior during supervised parenting time, and the children’s placement with their mother — but held that these were outweighed by the gravity of respondent’s conduct. The court emphasized that respondent’s sexual abuse of AS, a child toward whom he stood in loco parentis, furnished compelling evidence of unfitness under the doctrine of anticipatory neglect, which permits a parent’s mistreatment of one child to serve as probative evidence of risk to siblings.
Respondent argued that anticipatory neglect should not apply because AS was a nonbiological child and because the doctrine loses force when material distinctions exist among children. The court distinguished the limiting precedents of In re Kellogg and In re LaFrance, finding those cases inapposite: unlike in those decisions, the characteristics that made AS vulnerable — cognitive impairment and developmental delay — were shared by LAL, and CBL and MLFL’s young age and susceptibility placed them in analogous danger. The court further relied on In re Mota, which extended anticipatory neglect to situations where a respondent had assumed a genuine parental role with the abused child, as respondent had with AS.
The court also noted respondent’s admission to a forensic clinician of arguments and physical violence with nonrespondent-mother, and his complete failure to acknowledge responsibility for the abuse. The trial court’s credibility findings — including its rejection of the coaching theory — were entitled to substantial deference, and the appellate panel found no definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been made.
Key Takeaways
- Once statutory grounds for termination are established, a trial court must conduct a separate, child-centered best-interests inquiry under a preponderance standard, weighing factors including the parental bond, parenting capacity, safety, stability, and adoption prospects.
- The doctrine of anticipatory neglect — under which abuse of one child is probative of risk to siblings — applies even when the abused child is nonbiological, provided the respondent has assumed an actual parental role with that child, as recognized in In re Mota, 334 Mich App 300 (2020).
- Limiting precedents on anticipatory neglect (In re Kellogg, In re LaFrance) did not apply where the surviving children shared vulnerability characteristics — such as developmental disabilities and young age — with the abused sibling.
- A parent’s complete denial of abuse and failure to accept responsibility are legitimate factors in the best-interests calculus, and appellate courts afford substantial deference to trial court credibility determinations.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision reinforces that Michigan courts will apply the anticipatory neglect doctrine expansively in termination cases involving sexual abuse of a child in the home, even where the victim is a nonbiological child. Attorneys representing parents or children in similar proceedings should note that a strong parental bond and compliant behavior during supervised visitation will not, standing alone, defeat a best-interests finding when the underlying conduct involves serious sexual abuse of a vulnerable child for whom the parent served as a caregiver.
The case also illustrates the evidentiary weight courts assign to a parent’s lack of accountability. Expert testimony that a respondent has failed to take responsibility for the conduct underlying court involvement is a significant — and potentially dispositive — factor in the best-interests analysis, particularly where the risk of future harm to other children is directly tied to that unacknowledged conduct.