Jurisdiction; MCL 712A.2(b); Necessary medical care

The court affirmed the trial court’s subsequent “jury trial on a new petition at the adjudication stage, and the jury [finding] grounds for the exercise of jurisdiction over the children under MCL 712A.2(b).” On appeal, respondent-father contended “that no reasonable juror could have found that the circuit court had jurisdiction over his children because he placed the children with their custodians and ensured” they received proper medical care. After father “placed his children with their custodians, he refused to sign a medical power of attorney that would have furnished the custodians with the legal authority to act on the children’s behalf, including scheduling or approving medical treatment.” After he “refused to do so, the children’s custodians were not able to schedule medical appointments for the children. [He] acknowledged that the custodians had been unable to schedule medical appointments for the children for almost a month.” The court believed “that a reasonable jury could have found that a preponderance of the evidence established that respondent-father did not provide the children with necessary medical care. Petitioner further alleged other statutory grounds for jurisdiction, including abandonment and failure to provide housing and other necessary care. We emphasize that a child is not without proper custody or guardianship when ‘a parent has placed the juvenile with another person who is legally responsible for the care and maintenance of the juvenile and who is able to and does provide the juvenile with proper care and maintenance.’” The court held that the DHHS “need not prove all possible statutory grounds to support the exercise of jurisdiction.” Thus, its decision was “based solely on a reasonable jury’s ability to find that [father] failed to provide the children with necessary medical care.”