In Re Harris Minors

── In Re Harris Minors ── Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED May 20, 2026 10:34 AM In re HARRIS, Minors. No. 378488 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 2025-000199-NA Before: TREBILCOCK, P.J., and CAMERON and LIEVENSE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent appeals by right the order terminating her parental rights to her children, AH and ZH, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) (child or sibling of the child has suffered physical injury, physical abuse, or sexual abuse, and parent who had opportunity to prevent injury or abuse failed to do so), (g) (although financially able, parent failed to provide proper care or custody), and (j) (reasonable likelihood child will be harmed if returned to parent). We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Respondent is the adoptive mother of AH, ZH, and her now-deceased daughter, NH. Respondent has a grown biological daughter, Shannon, who has her own children with Jarvis Butts. In 2012, respondent and Shannon learned that Butts had been previously convicted of criminal sexual assault against children and was a registered sex offender. Despite this knowledge, respondent allowed Shannon, Butts, and their children to live in her home with AH, ZH, and NH. She also allowed her children to have repeated, unsupervised contact with Butts. In January 2024, NH did not return home from school. Police believed that Butts was the last person to be seen with NH. NH was presumed dead, and Butts was charged and bound over for first-degree murder and first-degree criminal sexual conduct. After NH’s disappearance, some of respondent’s family members accused Butts of sexually assaulting NH and other children living in her home. As a result, petitioner, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), initiated the instant action seeking to terminate respondent’s parental rights. -1-  After respondent pleaded no contest to the allegations in the petition, the trial court assumed jurisdiction over the children and found that there were statutory grounds to terminate respondent’s parental rights as noted above. Then, during the best-interests hearing, evidence was introduced that, in addition to Butts’s sexual abuse, AH was sexually abused by another child living in respondent’s home and that, when AH told respondent about this abuse, respondent failed to take any action. AH and ZH also reported that respondent physically abused them. The trial court ultimately found that termination was in the children’s best interests. This appeal followed. II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review a trial court’s best-interests determination for clear error. In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 713; 846 NW2d 61 (2014). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, giving due regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to observe the witnesses.” In re Miller, 347 Mich App 420, 425; 15 NW3d 287 (2023) (quotation marks and citation omitted). III. ANALYSIS Respondent contends that the trial court erred by determining that termination was in her children’s best interests. We disagree