Jurisdiction over the child; MCL 712A.2(b)(1)

The court affirmed the trial court’s order assuming jurisdiction over the child, NSLW. On appeal, respondents-parents challenged “the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1), arguing that there was not a preponderance of the evidence establishing that they had neglected or abused NSLW or that they were, consistent with the language in that provision, actually able to provide proper care for NSLW given her severe mental-health and behavioral issues.” The court concluded that “the trial court found that a preponderance of the evidence established all four possible grounds for assuming jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1). Respondents did not directly challenge the [trial] court’s assumption of jurisdiction under any of the three alternative grounds,” and the court did “not see reversible error in the [trial] court’s conclusion that at least one of them was satisfied.” In particular, it found “no reason to disrupt the trial court’s determination that assumption of jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) was appropriate because NSLW was ‘without proper custody or guardianship.’” Although the court, “like the trial court, fully recognize[d] the difficult position respondents were in due to NSLW’s behavioral and mental-health issues,” it was “also ‘mindful of the deference owed to the trial court’s decision.’” It held that “in light of the evidence before the trial court when making its decision regarding jurisdiction, it is apparent that no guardianship of NSLW was ever established and that NSLW’s sister was both unwilling and legally unable to provide proper care and custody to NSLW, thereby satisfying the ‘without proper custody or guardianship’ language in MCL 712A.2(b)(1).”