Jurisdiction; In re Long; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2); Zeeland Farms Servs. v. JBL Enter., Inc.; People v. Perry; Child protective services (CPS)

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in taking jurisdiction over the child (T), the court affirmed. The case arose out of allegations that respondent-father was aware that T was being sexually abused by her half-brother, J (who was six years older than T), and failed to protect her from the abuse. Respondent argued that the trial court clearly erred by exercising jurisdiction under MCL 712A.19(b)(1) and (2). In arguing that he was unaware of sexual contact, respondent relied heavily on the fact that a CPS investigation as to the incidents of sexual abuse that occurred when T was five years old was dismissed. Given the testimony, the dismissal of the investigation did not definitively establish that he was not aware of the abuse. Respondent argued that T provided inconsistent testimony on several matters. Respondent claimed that the journal entry proved that it was T’s mother, not him, who encouraged T to lie. He also pointed to inconsistencies on more ancillary matters such as how long J stayed at respondent’s home during the time at issue. However, the court generally defers "to a jury’s credibility determinations given their unique opportunity to observe the witnesses.” The jury may have found that T “was not credible on some matters, while believing her testimony that she disclosed to respondent what [J] was doing to her.” Further, respondent overlooked that the jury was presented with evidence that did not reflect favorably on his credibility. In sum, there was sufficient evidence presented for the jury to find that respondent was aware of incidents of sexual abuse. Respondent argued that even if he was aware about the allegations of abuse, there was no evidence that he failed to protect T. Respondent asserted that after the incident occurred when T was five years old, he installed a lock on T’s door and established a house rule that boys were not allowed in T’s bedroom. Although T had “a lock on her bedroom door, she testified that respondent told her she was not allowed to lock it. Further, the house rule that boys were not allowed in [T’s] bedroom was insufficient to protect [T], because on two occasions, while visiting respondent, [J] entered [T’s] bedroom and began touching [T’s] legs and inner thighs.” Further, she testified J “would wait until respondent fell asleep and go into” her bedroom. More importantly, she testified that respondent was aware what J was doing, yet continued to allow J unsupervised accessed to her.