Court Opinion

ID: 9892007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 05:07:55.488197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:45.580091
License: Public Domain

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                                                                      UNPUBLISHED
In re MILLER, Minors.                                                 October 19, 2023

                                                                      No. 365297
                                                                      Genesee Circuit Court
                                                                      Family Division
                                                                      LC No. 10-127138-NA

Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and JANSEN and CAMERON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        Respondent-mother appeals as of right the order authorizing the petition and exercising
jurisdiction over the minor children, JTM and JAM. We affirm.

                 I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       In September 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a petition
to remove the children from respondent-mother’s care. According to DHHS, respondent-mother
was frequently intoxicated and, while in this state, she kicked the children out of the house. The
children phoned a family friend who allowed the children to stay in her home. The trial court
authorized the petition after hearing testimony about these circumstances. This appeal followed.

                                        II. JURISDICTION

        Respondent-mother argues the trial court erred when it found statutory grounds for
jurisdiction. Specifically, she believes there was no evidence she failed to provide the children
proper care and custody. We disagree.

                                  A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

       “Whether a trial court can assert jurisdiction over a child protective proceeding is a question
of law we review de novo.” In re Hull, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket
No. 361537); slip op at 3. A trial court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction is reviewed for clear
error. In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286, 295; 690 NW2d 505 (2004). “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.” Id.

                                                 -1-
at 296-297. Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. In re Hull, ___ Mich App
at ___; slip op at 3.

               When interpreting statutes, our primary task is to discern and give effect to
       the intent of the Legislature. To accomplish that task, we begin by examining the
       language of the statute itself. If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the
       Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must
       be enforced as written. [In re COH, ERH, JRG, & KBH, 495 Mich 184, 195; 848
       NW2d 107 (2014) (alterations, quotation marks, and citations omitted).]

                                          B. ANALYSIS

         MCL 712A.2(b) governs a court’s jurisdiction in child protection proceedings. The statute
states, in relevant part:

              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.

       In finding statutory grounds for jurisdiction, the trial court stated:

       The testimony was that she has taken approximately $5,000 from [JTM] but still
       owes $9,000 to Consumers. So it renders the home environment an unfit place by
       reason of neglect, cruelty, or drunkenness and criminality I believe. It’s created an
       unfit home environment for the children.

              I believe that she has neglected or refused to provide the proper and
       necessary support, education, or other care necessary.

               I believe that she’s also subjected the children to a substantial risk of harm
       based upon her, her alcoholism and her refusal to care for the children and she
       kicked them out of the house. And also just her alcoholism has rendered her an
       unfit parent. She is unable to provide for them appropriately.

               As I believe that the agency has shown this by a preponderance of the
       evidence, so DHHS has met its burden, the Court is going to assume jurisdiction
       over [respondent-mother] at this point in time.

        According to respondent-mother, the trial court erred in exercising jurisdiction under MCL
712A.2(b). She asserts the children were not without proper custody because they were staying
with a family friend. Respondent-mother misunderstands MCL 712A.2(b).

                                                 -2-
        This statute uses the word “or” to describe the various circumstances in which a trial court
may find grounds for jurisdiction. Thus, the Legislature plainly intended that jurisdiction need
only be found in one of the circumstances cited in MCL 712A.2(b). The trial court noted several
grounds for jurisdiction, but did not include a finding respondent-mother left the children without
“proper custody or guardianship.” Even so, respondent-mother’s argument on appeal only
challenges that portion of the statute. She does not explain why the trial court erred with regard to
the other grounds for jurisdiction cited in its findings. Because grounds for jurisdiction may be
found on a variety of grounds, and respondent-mother does not specifically challenge the cited
grounds for jurisdiction, there is no basis for this Court to reverse the trial court’s exercise of
jurisdiction.

       Affirmed.

                                                              /s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
                                                              /s/ Kathleen Jansen
                                                              /s/ Thomas C. Cameron

                                                -3-