If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

UNPUBLISHED

In re CASTILLO/DELLEH, Minors. November 22, 2022

No. 360877

Wayne Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 2021-000760-NA

Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and SERVITTO and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On February 28, 2022 the circuit court took jurisdiction over three of respondent-mother’s 

six children based on physical abuse and neglect in their mother’s home and the father of two of 

the children’s failure to comply with a safety plan.1 The record evidence clearly supported the 

court’s jurisdiction and we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2021, Child Protective Services (CPS) received a report that respondentmother’s home was filthy, her children were unbathed, and respondent had physically abused 

them. When CPS and police agents visited the home, they found CC and respondent’s children

with Wilber Prieto—WP, IP, and EP. The children were dirty and had a foul odor. They could 

not remember when they had last bathed or eaten. The children described that respondent would 

not let them sleep and forced them to drink energy drinks and clean the house all night. They also 

described being struck with belts, spatulas, electrical cords, and a paint ball gun, and accused 

respondent of shooting the paint ball gun at them as punishment. Twelve-year-old CC indicated 

that respondent often went out at night and left her to babysit her younger siblings.

WP, IP, and EP were returned the care of their father. He secured a court order for sole 

custody and those three children are no longer subjects of these child protective proceedings. CC 

was sent with her younger half-sisters—AZ and AH—to the home of the younger children’s 

 

1 CC’s father abandoned her and was never a party in these proceedings. Wilber Prieto is the father 

of WP, IP, and EP. He has taken sole custody of his children. Chris Delleh is the father of AZ 

and AH, respondent’s youngest children.
-2-

paternal aunt. The father of AZ and AH—Chris Delleh—took custody of these three children 

under a safety plan. Over the following month, Delleh left the children in respondent’s care on 

several occasions, even after a CPS agent strictly forbid this. The Department of Health and 

Human Services (DHHS) also attempted to provide mental health services for respondent. 

Respondent had previously been diagnosed with bipolar and post-traumatic stress disorders, and 

had been hospitalized at one point. She had stopped taking her medication and was no longer 

under any doctor’s care. Respondent declined the DHHS’s offer of services in this regard, insisting 

she did not suffer from mental illness.

On August 30, 2021, the DHHS filed a petition for temporary wardship of CC, AZ, and 

AH. The petition alleged that respondent neglected or refused to provide proper or necessary 

support, education, medical, surgical, or other care necessary for the children’s health or morals, 

or subjected the children to a substantial risk of harm to their mental well-being, or abandoned the 

children without proper custody or guardianship. Further, the petition alleged that the “home or 

environment, by reason of neglect, cruelty, drunkenness, criminality, or depravity on the part of 

[respondent,] . . . is an unfit place” for the children. The petition requested the removal of the 

children from respondent’s home for reasons including an unfit home, physical neglect, physical 

abuse, and threatened harm. The caseworker acknowledged that when she made a surprise visit 

on August 12, 2021, the home had running water and adequate food was available. CC indicated 

that this change only occurred after CPS became involved. The court granted the petition and the 

children were placed in nonrelative foster care.

On October 5, 2021, the DHHS filed an amended petition for temporary wardship. The 

circuit court granted that petition as well and continued the children in foster care. While the 

children had been wards of the court, they had all exhibited signs of trauma and the court deemed 

it unsafe for them to return to respondent’s care. Respondent was initially awarded supervised 

parenting time. However, workers observed respondent’s inappropriate treatment of CC and CC 

expressed fear of her mother. Accordingly, the DHHS suspended respondent’s visits with CC.

The court ultimately held a trial to establish jurisdiction over the children. The DHHS 

presented into evidence the children’s reports of their experiences in respondent’s care. The 

children reported that respondent’s home was filled with clutter and garbage. Rotting food 

collected maggots. Respondent kept odd hours and forced the children to drink energy drinks so 

they could stay up all night and clean the house. The children described being hit with objects and 

shot at with the paintball gun. Once, respondent threatened to burn down the house with CC, WP, 

EP, and IP inside, and even lit a rug on fire to threaten the children. AZ and AH were too young 

to provide much information to the caseworkers. However, CC described that shortly before the 

children were taken into care, respondent yanked her sisters’ hair extremely hard, pulling some 

hair out by the roots. The children indicated that there was not enough healthy food in the home, 

only a small number of snacks. They did not always have running water, and at one point, the 

toilet was broken for a month. 

Respondent testified at the trial as well. She continued to deny that she suffered from any 

mental health issues. She claimed that she suffered from various physical ailments that forced her 

to sleep during the day and to be awake at night, and so she tried to adjust the children’s sleep 

schedules to match hers. Respondent denied that she actually gave the children energy drinks, 

claiming that she gave them Kool-Aid and told them it was an energy drink.
-3-

The circuit court ultimately took jurisdiction over CC, AH, and AZ pursuant to MCL 

712A.2(b)(1) and (2). Respondent appeals.

II. ANALYSIS

In child protective proceedings, jurisdiction can be taken over a child if the DHHS 

establishes a ground under MCL 712A.2 by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Kellogg, 331 

Mich App 249, 253; 952 NW2d 544 (2020). We review the court’s underlying factual findings 

for clear error. Id. “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 BZ, 264 Mich App 286, 296-297; 690 NW2d 505 

(2004). The circuit court in this case took jurisdiction over the children under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) 

and (2),which state, in relevant part:

The court has the following authority and jurisdiction:

* * *

(b) Jurisdiction in proceedings concerning a juvenile under 18 years of age 

found within the county:

(1) Whose parent or other person legally responsible for the care and 

maintenance of the juvenile, when able to do so, neglects or refuses to provide 

proper or necessary support, education, medical, surgical, or other care necessary 

for his or her health or morals, who is subject to a substantial risk of harm to his or 

her mental well-being, who is abandoned by his or her parents, guardian, or other 

custodian, or who is without proper custody or guardianship . . . .

* * *

(2) Whose home or environment, by reason of neglect, cruelty, 

drunkenness, criminality, or depravity on the part of a parent, guardian, nonparent 

adult, or other custodian, is an unfit place for the juvenile to live in . . . .

The DHHS more than adequately supported grounds to take jurisdiction over the children.

The DHHS established by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent had “neglect[ed] or 

refuse[d] to provide proper or necessary support . . . or other care necessary” and had “subject[ed]” 

the children “to a substantial risk of harm to [their] mental well-being.” MCL 712A.2(b)(1). The 

DHHS also established that respondent’s home was “unfit” based at least on neglect. MCL 

712A.2(b)(2). 

Four of respondents’ children described the paucity of food in their home. When CPS first 

responded to respondent’s home, the children could not remember the last time they had eaten. 

Respondent had not provided hygiene care for her children; all four were filthy and malodorous. 

CC, who was only 12 years old, detailed how she was left alone to care for her younger siblings at 

night.
-4-

Most concerning was the evidence of physical abuse and threatening behavior. The 

children described that respondent gave them energy drinks and forced them to stay up all night 

cleaning. She struck them with objects and shot paint balls at them as punishment. She pulled her 

young child’s hair out by the roots while attacking her. And respondent threatened to burn down 

the house with the children inside, going so far as to light a rug on fire. CC underwent 

psychological evaluation and therapy was recommended due to the trauma she endured. While 

respondent claims that her physical health limited her ability to supervise her children, her medical 

diagnoses cannot excuse this physical abuse. 

Respondent contends that that the DHHS should have provided in-home services while 

leaving the children in her care instead of seeking court jurisdiction over CC, AZ, and AH. The 

failure to do so violated her constitutional right to care and custody of her children, respondent 

argues. “If the trial court orders placement of the children in foster care, it must make explicit 

findings that . . . reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child have been made or that 

reasonable efforts to prevent removal are not required.” In re Benavides, 334 Mich App 162, 168; 

964 NW2d 108 (2020) (quotation marks and citation omitted). But as acknowledged by this Court 

in In re Williams, 333 Mich App 172, 184; 958 NW2d 629 (2020), while “it is well recognized as 

public policy that separation of children from parents should be avoided if reasonably feasible,”

“not removing a child from an unfit parent can also be hazardous to the child’s health.”

Furthermore, MCL 712A.13a(9) provides for the placement of a child in foster care if the 

following conditions are met:

(a) Custody of the child with the parent presents a substantial risk of harm 

to the child’s life, physical health, or mental well-being.

(b) No provision of service or other arrangement except removal of the child 

is reasonably available to adequately safeguard the child from risk as described in 

subdivision (a).

(c) Continuing the child’s residence in the home is contrary to the child’s 

welfare.

(d) Consistent with the circumstances, reasonable efforts were made to 

prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child.

(e) Conditions of child custody away from the parent are adequate to 

safeguard the child’s health and welfare.

Here, the children were at a substantial risk of harm in respondent’s custody based on 

evidence of physical abuse, and maintaining custody was contrary to the children’s welfare 

because of that abuse. CPS made reasonable efforts to avoid placing the children in foster care by 

creating a safety plan with Delleh, but that plan failed. Accordingly, nonrelative foster care was 
-5-

the best means to safeguard the children’s health and welfare.

We affirm.

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher

/s/ Deborah A. Servitto

/s/ Christopher P. Yates