Jurisdiction; Removal; Constitutional rights; Due process; Equal protection; Judicial prejudice; Misrepresentations

The court rejected respondent-father’s claim, “that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because he was not served with the petition before the preliminary hearing.” It also rejected his “cursory arguments alleging that his constitutional rights were violated[.]” Respondent argued “that the trial court erred by failing to find clear and convincing evidence that removal was necessary, but the clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard applies to termination decision rather than to the initial removal of a child.” For ordinary “removal proceedings, the evidentiary standard to authorize a petition is merely probable cause.” The court found that in “light of the evidence of respondent’s past abuse, the son’s fear of further abuse, and respondent’s refusal to cooperate, that standard was clearly met.” Respondent contended “that the son spoke under duress, but, to the minimal extent the record could possibly support that contention, we defer to the trial court’s superior ability to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it.” The court concluded that the “trial court did not clearly err by finding that the son was without proper custody or guardianship,[] and that the home ‘by reason of neglect, cruelty, . . . criminality, or depravity’ by respondent made it unfit for the son to live in. Its order removing the son was proper.” Next, respondent argued “that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by continuing the proceedings after he filed his claim of appeal. Although the trial court was prohibited by MCR 7.208(A) from setting aside or amending the removal order that respondent appealed, it did not attempt to set aside or amend that order. And, to the extent that the proceedings continued in the probate court, the court was authorized ‘to decide other matters pertaining to the proceeding from which [the] appeal was filed,’ and because we denied respondent’s request for a stay, the order appealed was not suspended.” Affirmed.