Order of adjudication; Tender years motion; Indicia of trustworthiness; In re Martin; In re Brown; MCR 3.972(C); Jurisdiction over the children; In re BZ; Abandoned claims; Mettler Walloon, LLC v. Melrose Twp.; Burden of proof; In re Sanders; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the children’s (JM and JF) statements to a CPS worker (C). Also, the trial court did not err by holding that respondent presented a substantial risk to the well-being of the children, or that the exercise of its jurisdiction over the children was appropriate due to her “neglect, cruelty, criminality, or depravity.” Respondent argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the DHHS’s motion and admitted the children’s statements to C during the forensic interviews. The trial court admitted the statements under MCR 3.972(C). C testified at the motion hearing that she conducted separate interviews with the children. They were under 10 years old at that time. Before C “asked about the allegations of physical abuse, she developed a rapport with the children by asking them personal questions.” Only after she “established that each child could follow her line of questioning and understand the difference between truth and a lie did she ask about the allegations of physical abuse." C’s questions were open ended, so that she did not dictate their responses. C testified that JF told her that she and JM were “routinely whipped with extension cords.” C observed bruises on JF’s forearm. JM “had scars and bruising on various parts of her body, including her back, legs, and thighs.” When C asked how respondent disciplined JM, JM said that she used an extension cord. JM also told C “that she was scared of respondent and scared to go home.” C testified that she had spoken to the mother, and she had admitted to C that she “‘whooped’ the children when they misbehaved.” In addition, Dr. G “testified to the injuries she had observed on the children, and that both children had told her, during separate examinations, that respondent hit them with a belt or extension cord.” The children gave consistent narratives and details as to “respondent’s use of an extension cord to punish them.” Their statements to C “were consistent with statements the children had made to foster care workers, and were also corroborated by medical documents, police reports, and respondent’s own admissions." Conversations that C “later had with the children were consistent with what the children had said during their interviews.” Their statements to C “were both consistent and independently corroborated.” The court held “that they had adequate indicia of trustworthiness.” It affirmed the order of adjudication.