Opinion
No. 333321
01-19-2017
In re WINKLEPLECK, Minors.
UNPUBLISHED Jackson Circuit Court Family Division
LC No. 14-001659-NA Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and STEPHENS and O'BRIEN, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to his minor children KW and AW under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). We affirm.
Respondent's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court clearly erred in finding clear and convincing evidence to terminate his parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) because, although there was evidence that another child in his care had been harmed, there was no evidence that he had ever harmed KW or AW. "The doctrine of anticipatory neglect recognizes that '[h]ow a parent treats one child is certainly probative of how that parent may treat other children.' " In re AH, 245 Mich App 77, 84; 627 NW2d 33 (2001), quoting In the Matter of LaFlure, 48 Mich App 377, 392; 210 NW2d 482 (1973). Respondent contends that the outcome in this case is determined by our decision in In re LaFrance minors, 306 Mich App 713; 858 NW2d 143 (2014). In that case, we reversed an order terminating the respondents' parental rights to their three older children because the trial court improperly relied on the parents' substance abuse and the doctrine of anticipatory neglect, based on the respondents' treatment of their infant child, where there was no evidence that substance abuse had or would result in neglect of their older children. Id. at 732. Respondent asserts that, as a result of the holding in In re LaFrance, the doctrine of anticipatory neglect cannot support the termination of his parental rights. However, at the May 5, 2016 termination hearing, respondent stipulated that there were sufficient statutory grounds to support termination of his parental rights. Accordingly, this issue was waived. See Kloian v Domino's Pizza, LLC, 273 Mich App 449, 455 n 1; 733 NW2d 766 (2006); Jack v Jack, 239 Mich App 668, 672; 610 NW2d 231 (2000).
Respondent does not argue that the trial court erred in finding that termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests. We note, however, that following a best interests hearing, the trial court found that the case had been pending for almost two years, the children—ages two and three—had been in care for almost their entire lives. During that period, although respondent complied with services, the trial court found that he had not benefited from them in light of the fact that another child in respondent's care (but not involved in this appeal) had received significant injuries that were indicative of child abuse. The court reasoned that the children deserved permanence and that it was in the children's best interests to be "raised in a loving, safe, nurturing, caring, appropriate environment." Given the record before this Court, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests. --------
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
/s/ Colleen A. O'Brien