Whether removal of the children from respondent’s care & custody was proper under MCL 712A.13a(9); Factors (a)-(d)

The court affirmed the trial court’s order of removal as to respondent-mother’s two children. They were removed from her custody due primarily to her drug use. She argued the trial court clearly erred by finding that removal was proper under MCL 712A.13a(9). As to factor (a), the trial court’s order referenced her positive drug test for meth “and amphetamine, her unstable home environment, the positive meth[] tests in North Dakota relative to the children that led to child protective proceedings in that state, incidents of domestic violence between respondent and her father, respondent’s minimal participation or refusal to participate in offered services, and her” behavior during a positive drug test. The court held that the trial court did not clearly err “by finding that these grounds established that respondent presented a substantial risk of harm to the children’s lives, physical health, and mental well-being.” As to factor (b), she argued that placing them “with her mother was a suitable alternative to removal. Respondent’s mother, who had resided in North Dakota but was currently staying in Michigan, testified that the children spent approximately half of the time with her and that she was willing to remain in Michigan as long as needed to ensure” they were safe. But there was no testimony as to “whether she was willing to care for” them full-time and she was the subject of a prior “child protective proceeding involving the use of marijuana, and she still occasionally used” it. The record did not support a determination that placing the children with her would be a suitable alternative. As to factor (c), the trial court found that continuing their “residence in respondent’s home was contrary to” their welfare. While she argued that “she complied with services in North Dakota, respondent’s caseworker testified to the contrary. Regardless, to the extent that respondent completed services in North Dakota to address her drug use, she did not benefit from” them as she tested positive for meth and amphetamine here. Further, the caseworker testified that before the positive drug screen, respondent was yelling at one of the children “and was ‘very scattered,’ i.e., she was ‘not making sense talking’ and was ‘just not able to pay attention.’” Thus, there was evidence “she was under the influence of drugs in the presence of one of her children. For these reasons, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that factor (c) was satisfied.” Finally, as to factor (d), it “did not clearly err by finding that consistent with the circumstances, reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate the need for" the children's removal.