Assumption of jurisdiction; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2); Children’s Protective Services (CPS)

Holding that record evidence supported the trial court’s finding that exercising jurisdiction over respondent-mother’s “children was warranted under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2),” the court affirmed the order assuming jurisdiction. Five children were involved in the case - SC, LC, JC, AS1, and AS2. As to her “medical neglect of AS2, testimony and medical reports established that respondent had not received any prenatal care until she was 29 weeks pregnant and that AS2” was born premature at 36 weeks with meth “and THC in her system. Multiple witnesses, including respondent, testified that she had missed at least three follow-up appointments for AS2 scheduled after her birth. The documentary and testimonial evidence also established that, during the weeks of these missed appointments, AS2 had lost nearly one pound, which was a concerning amount of weight for a newborn.” As to the finding of an “unsafe home environment and safe-sleep concerns related to AS2, respondent’s friend testified that, during her visit with respondent and AS2, respondent ‘was around’ but had ‘just sat [AS2] on the couch’ on top of a loose throw blanket.” In addition, a CPS investigator testified to observing “AS2 lying on loose blankets on the couch while respondent was ‘outside smoking a cigarette’ where ‘[i]t wouldn’t have been possible’ for her to see AS2.” As to her educational neglect of LC and SC, secretaries at their “schools testified that students were reported as truant if they missed more than 10 days in any given semester and that LC and SC had, respectively, missed 13 days and 25 days of school in the 2024 fall semester.” As to the issue of respondent’s drug use, the father of LC, AS2, JC, and AS1 “testified that, while visiting [her] home, he found some foil with a substance on it that he believed was” meth in the basement, “and the CPS investigator testified that respondent ‘would not allow access to’ the basement during a house visit.” There was also testimony AS1 appeared to have “a thrush infection in her mouth, for which respondent had not sought treatment[.]” Further, there was testimony that she “often relied on then-13-year-old SC to care for JC, who was nonverbal and required a specific diet and an at-home physical therapy routine due to his degenerative condition[.]” The court concluded the doctrine of anticipatory neglect also supported “the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over all the children.”