Removal; MCL 712A.14b(1); Jurisdiction over the child; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2)

The court held that (1) because all statutory requirements were met, respondent-father failed to show that the trial court clearly erred in removing his child (PNO) from his care and (2) “the trial court did not plainly err by finding grounds for jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” The court noted that respondent “was arrested for human trafficking. PNO was four years old and without supervision. Remaining on his own would present a serious risk of harm.” It also noted that he “had not identified any relatives that may immediately care for PNO, thus requiring [DHHS] to take action.” DHHS searched for a “family member that could take temporary custody of PNO and the agency was unable to find such relatives. [It] searched various databases, performed Internet searches, and worked with the police when respondent was arrested. This constitutes reasonable efforts to prevent removal.” The court noted that because “of PNO’s young age, protective custody was needed to provide him with safety and security.” Similarly, the court found that “remaining in respondent’s home alone would be contrary to PNO’s welfare.” Respondent claimed “that removal of PNO was not necessary if he made alternate plans for PNO’s care while respondent was incarcerated.” There was no evidence he “made any plans for PNO’s care.” The court noted that no “information was provided to [DHHS] about alternate plans for PNO’s care when respondent was arrested. Accordingly, removal of PNO was appropriate.” Also, the court found that “respondent mischaracterizes the facts.” On appeal, he claimed it was “unclear when he was arrested.” Thus, he alleged “he could have been providing care and custody for PNO or setting up alternate care arrangements through at least” 1/25. The court found that there “was no evidence respondent planned for his mother to take custody of PNO before his arrest.” As to the trial court’s taking jurisdiction of PNO, because he “was not placed with a relative, he was without proper custody, and jurisdiction was appropriate under MCL 712A.2(b)(1).” The court also concluded it “was appropriate under MCL 712A.2(b)(2).” The court noted that respondent “admitted that PNO was in the other room when he was arrested. [He] pleaded no contest to the allegation that PNO was in his care when the human trafficking occurred. A home where human trafficking, transportation of a person for prostitution, and torture occur is clearly an unsafe environment for a child.” Affirmed.