Termination under §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii) & (b)(ii); Jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1); Hearsay within hearsay; Kuebler v Kuebler; Anticipatory neglect; In re Kellogg; Reunification efforts; Aggravating circumstances; MCL 722.638; In re Barber/Espinoza; Children’s best interests; “Relative”

The court held that the trial court erred by finding: (1) it had jurisdiction over the children at issue; (2) the DHHS was not required to make reunification efforts; (3) statutory grounds were met; and (4) termination was in the children’s best interests. Respondent-mother’s rights to her sons (the boys) were terminated based on “‘willful ignorance’ and failure to follow up on ‘red flags’ and ‘clues’ regarding the situation inside” the home of her daughters’ (the girls) father (Shelton), who was charged with multiple crimes arising out of the death of one of his girlfriend’s sons. One of respondent’s daughters lived in that home. On appeal, the court agreed with respondent that the trial court erred by finding statutory grounds to assume jurisdiction over the boys when no evidence indicated they were abused, abandoned, or neglected. “[F]or the trial court to assume jurisdiction over the boys on the basis that respondent neglected the girls,” it first had to determine she neglected the girls. But the record did not support its determination that she “neglected any of her children.” The evidence and testimony “did not support that respondent knew about the conditions in Shelton’s home.” Considering the “scarcity of evidence that respondent actually knew or should have known about the abuse occurring in Shelton’s home,” the court was not convinced she neglected the girls. Moreover, “the doctrine of anticipatory neglect [did] not support the trial court’s jurisdiction over the boys.” The court also agreed with her that the trial court erred by releasing the DHHS from its obligation to make reasonable reunification efforts in the absence of aggravating circumstances. The trial court “erred by finding that the boys were subjected to aggravating circumstances because” the abusers “were not a parent, guardian, or custodian of the boys, and nothing in the record” suggested they ever resided with the boys. The court further agreed with respondent that the trial court erred by finding statutory grounds were met. As to § (a)(ii), nothing in the record suggested she abandoned the boys. As to § (b)(ii), the picture this case painted was “not that of a neglectful mother. To the contrary, the record supports that [she] repeatedly made efforts to investigate Shelton.” Finally, as to the children’s best interests, the “trial court did not articulate any findings specific to the best interests of the boys, focusing instead on the girls. Most notably, [it] acknowledged that the girls’ placement with their grandmother weighed against termination, but [it] failed to similarly consider that the boys resided with” their father. Reversed and remanded.