Jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b); Distinguishing In re Christie

Because it was not left with a definite and firm conviction the trial court made a mistake in determining jurisdiction over the child at issue (KAE) was established by a preponderance of the evidence, the court affirmed. Respondent-mother and the putative-father contended KAE was born in Indiana late in 7/20 “and was never in Kent County until KAE was brought to Michigan from Georgia” in 8/20 pursuant to the trial court’s order. They asserted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over KAE as a result. However, the court concluded that, “unlike the undisputed evidence in” Christie, the evidence before the trial court here did “not compel this view.” Testimony was presented “from a detective with the Kent County Sheriff’s Department that putative father, respondent, and an infant visited the putative father’s uncle at his Kent County residence approximately one week” before 8/14/20. The putative father’s “uncle confirmed that the visit occurred approximately one to two weeks before” that date. Additionally, there was “testimony that respondent’s last known address was in Kent County in [8/20]. And the trial court noted that, since [9/18], respondent and putative father had provided caseworkers and the trial court with Kent County residential addresses in the proceedings involving” the couple’s other child. The trial court found “that a preponderance of the evidence established that KAE was found in Kent County in early [8/20] and, therefore, jurisdiction was established.”