The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court order terminating parental rights that was based primarily on the doctrine of anticipatory neglect because the evidence did not demonstrate that the child at issue was subject to the same risk of harm as the other child who had been abused by the parent 8 years prior and under very different circumstances.

The Court reversed the trial court’s finding of aggravated circumstances because under MCL 722.638(1)(a), a court may bypass reunification and consider termination of parental rights at the outset only when a parent has already abused the child or the child’s sibling, not when there is anticipatory abuse or where the sibling is not biological.

The trial court erroneously held that statutory grounds for terminating the respondents’ parental rights had been established by clear and convincing evidence.

The trial court properly terminated the respondent-mother’s parental rights because at least one of the statutory termination factors was met.