Child protective proceeding; Jurisdiction over minors; MCL 712A.2(b)(1); Domestic violence exposure; Substantial risk of harm; In re Leach; Inability/unwillingness to protect; Credibility deference; In re HRC

The court held that the trial court did not err by assuming jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) because the record supported a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were subject to a substantial risk of harm from ongoing domestic violence and respondent-mother’s inability or unwillingness to protect them. CPS received multiple complaints in early 2024 describing repeated domestic violence by the children’s father toward respondent, including incidents in which he leaned on her broken legs, spit in her face, threw a drink that also splashed a child, and returned to the home uninvited to threaten or pressure her, along with police observations that the home was a “hoarder house” and “fire hazard.” After removal, the DHHS filed a supplemental petition seeking jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (b)(2), and the trial court held an adjudication trial with testimony from respondent, the father, and the CPS investigator. On appeal from the jurisdiction order, the court explained the adjudicative question is whether a statutory basis existed “at the time the petition was filed” because MCL 712A.2(b) “speaks in the present tense.” The court held the trial court could credit testimony showing respondent’s “periodic” and “continuing” domestic violence history with the father, her acknowledgment that the children witnessed “some” domestic violence, and evidence that the father kept returning to the home and committing additional acts even after she claimed he moved out. The court also relied on evidence that respondent repeatedly failed to follow through on protective steps, including allowing dismissed criminal charges to remain dismissed and continuing to permit contact, and it deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations regarding respondent’s claim that the threat had ended. The panel concluded this record supported jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) based on a “substantial risk of harm” to the children’s mental well-being from exposure to ongoing domestic violence. Affirmed.