Order removing the child from the respondent-father’s custody; The trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the child; MCL 712A.2(b)(1); In re BZ; Department of Human Services (DHS); Child Protective Services (CPS)

[Unpublished opinion.] Concluding that there was no clear error in the trial court’s factual findings, the court held that, considered in their totality, the findings provided legally sufficient evidence for the trial court to exercise jurisdiction over the respondent-father’s child pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1). Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s order removing the child from his custody. Respondent first challenged the trial court’s finding that “his alleged lack of cooperation with DHS officials was a valid ground for taking jurisdiction. Failure to cooperate with DHS in general is not directly implicated in the language of MCL 712A.2(b)(1)” and thus, cannot “serve as a basis for exercising jurisdiction.” However, the statute provided the trial court “authority to exercise jurisdiction where a child is ‘subject to a substantial risk of harm to his or her mental well-being.’” The trial court found that “respondent’s violent outburst in front of” the child “and his inability to control himself in front of her caused direct harm” to her mental well-being. He admitted that she was in the home when he punched the wall. CPS worker-P testified that the child saw respondent’s violent outburst after P and another worker removed her from the home. The child “became upset and needed comforting. Respondent testified that he did not allow CPS workers to interview” the child when they appeared at his home, “ostensibly to protect her from emotional trauma of having to discuss the sexual abuse on more than one occasion.” However, the record showed that contrary to his claim that he was protecting her “from emotional trauma, respondent created it.” Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that his “violent outbursts subjected” the child to “a substantial risk of emotional harm.” As to the grounds on which the trial court found that he failed to protect her, given “the totality of the circumstances, and considering that there was no clear answer as to when” her injuries occurred, the court was “not left with a definite and firm conviction” that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to provide proper care “while she was in his exclusive custody.”