Jurisdiction over the child under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2)

The court affirmed the trial court’s order assuming jurisdiction over the child, OM, under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). Respondent-father argued “that the trial court clearly erred by finding that statutory grounds to exercise jurisdiction in his case existed by a preponderance of the evidence.” The court found that the DHHS clearly established by a preponderance of the evidence that the father “neglected or refused to provide OM with proper or necessary support and educational, medical, or mental-health care and subjected her to a substantial risk of harm to her mental well being, despite being able to provide for OM’s needs.” Thus, it held that “statutory grounds for the trial court to exercise jurisdiction existed under MCL 712A.2(b)(1).” Also, in light of the testimony presented at the father’s adjudication trial, the DHHS “established by a preponderance of the evidence that [his] home was unfit for OM.” Therefore, the court concluded that “statutory grounds for the trial court to exercise jurisdiction also existed under MCL 712A.2(b)(2).” Thus, it held that because the DHHS “established statutory grounds for exercising jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2), we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake by exercising jurisdiction over OM.”