-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

 

UNPUBLISHED 

In re A C-M BARNES, Minor. November 4, 2014 

No. 321322 

Washtenaw Circuit Court 

 Family Division 

LC No. 2013-000072-NA 

 

Before: METER, P.J., and WHITBECK and RIORDAN, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Respondent father appeals as of right the trial court order assuming jurisdiction over the 

minor child under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) (abandonment), and the termination of respondent’s 

parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(l) (prior termination).1

 We vacate the trial court’s 

order. 

I. ADJUDICATION 

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Respondent contends that the trial court improperly assumed jurisdiction over the minor 

girl. “Jurisdiction must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.” In re BZ, 264 Mich 

App 286, 295; 690 NW2d 505 (2004). We review a trial court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction 

for clear error. Id. We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. In re MU, 264 Mich 

App 270, 276; 690 NW2d 495 (2004). 

B. ANALYSIS 

At issue in this case is the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the minor girl, who was 

born in May 2004. Respondent had not cared for the minor child since September 2004, when 

she was placed in a guardianship with petitioners. In 2013, petitioners moved to terminate 

respondent’s parental rights. In the initial petition, petitioners requested that the trial court 

assume jurisdiction over the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1) (abandonment), (4) 

(failure to comply with court-structured plan), and (5) (failure to support and visit when has the 

 

1

 Respondent mother is not a party to this appeal. 
-2- 

ability to do so). They also requested termination at the initial dispositional hearing.2

 However, 

in the jurisdictional phase, the trial court only ruled on § (b)(1). 

At the onset of the joint adjudication trial and termination hearing, the trial court 

reviewed the jurisdictional grounds, and confirmed with the parties that a guardianship was in 

place as was a court-structured plan. The court concluded that, as agreed to by the parties, the 

jurisdictional grounds were met. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the trial court made more 

specific findings regarding the jurisdictional ground of MCL 712A.2(b)(1) (abandonment). This 

section provides: 

(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. . . . 

(B) “Without proper custody or guardianship” does not mean a 

parent has placed the juvenile with another person who is legally 

responsible for the care and maintenance of the juvenile and who is 

able to and does provide the juvenile with proper care and 

maintenance. 

The court took note of respondent’s criminal record, the threats he made to petitioners, and his 

lack of stable employment. However, the trial court improperly assumed jurisdiction pursuant to 

MCL 712A.2(b)(1). 

“The statute speaks in the present tense, and, therefore, the trial court must examine the 

child’s situation at the time the petition was filed.” In re MU, 264 Mich App 270, 279; 690 

NW2d 495 (2004). At the time the petition was filed, the minor was well cared for, happy, doing 

well in school, and regularly attending medical and dental appointments. She was living in a 

stable and appropriate environment with her guardians. There was no indication that she was 

without proper custody or guardianship, that she was at a substantial risk for harm, or that her 

guardians had abandoned her. Thus, the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction under MCL 

712A.2(b)(1). 

While petitioners focus on the alternate jurisdictional grounds, and there is evidence in 

the record of (b)(4) (failure to comply with court-structured plan) and (b)(5) (failure to support 

 

2

 Because termination occurred at the initial disposition, respondent’s challenge is not a collateral 

attack. In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120, 133 n 2; 809 NW2d 412 (2011). 
-3- 

and visit when has the ability to do so), the trial court did not make any findings regarding 

allegations in the petition relevant to these grounds. Nor did the trial court make an overarching 

finding that there was probable cause to believe all the allegations contained in the petition were 

true. As our Supreme Court has clarified: “The valid exercise of the probate court’s statutory 

jurisdiction is established by the contents of the petition after the probate judge or referee has 

found probable cause to believe that the allegations contained within the petitions are true.” In 

re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 437; 505 NW2d 834 (1993). 

II. CONCLUSION 

Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s order assuming jurisdiction under MCR 

712A.19b(1), and remand for the court’s findings regarding the alternate grounds of (b)(4) 

(failure to comply with court-structured plan), and (5) (failure to support and visit when has the 

ability to do so). We do not retain jurisdiction. 

/s/ Patrick M. Meter 

/s/ William C. Whitbeck 

/s/ Michael J. Riordan