Order of adjudication assuming jurisdiction over a child; In re Brock; MCL 712A.2(b)(1); In re Long; In re Mason; Matter of Taurus F; In re Nelson; A parent’s ability to execute a power of attorney as to his or her child’s care & custody; MCL 700.5103(1); In re Martin; Abandoning an argument by failing to support it; VanderWerp v. Plainfield Charter Twp.

Holding that the trial court properly assumed jurisdiction over respondent-mother’s child (B) pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1), the court affirmed the order of adjudication and the order of disposition removing B from respondent’s care and custody. The trial court ordered B removed and “placed in foster care after respondent was incarcerated and” the DHHS could not locate a relative or nonrelative with whom to place B. Respondent asserted that she arranged for B’s care and custody “before she was incarcerated by executing a power of attorney” (POA) so that a pastor could care for B. The trial court noted that while respondent had a POA in place, it “was insufficient because the pastor was not present when the DHHS filed its petition and because” B had never met him. Further, the trial court properly noted that respondent’s having a POA in place did not prevent jurisdiction because B “could be returned to an unfit environment at respondent’s whim.” In addition, the pastor was not present in the county when “the DHHS filed the petition, and the DHHS had not had time to evaluate the pastor or the appropriateness of his home. Finally, the [POA] that respondent granted the pastor was temporary and could have been revoked by respondent at any time, including after the trial court decided whether it had jurisdiction.” While respondent also contended that the trial court erred by assuming jurisdiction because a preponderance of evidence did not supporting finding that she abandoned B, posed a substantial risk of harm to B’s mental well-being, or that she kept B in an unfit home environment, “the trial court did not assume jurisdiction on those grounds.” It instead determined that she left B “without proper care and custody because respondent was incarcerated and she did not make proper arrangements for” B’s care and custody. It “stated its findings during the bench trial, and the adjudication order reflects those findings.” Thus, this argument had no merit.