Removal; Preliminary placement under MCL 712A.13a(9) & MCR 3.965(C)(2); In re Benavides; Adjudication; Jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(2); In re Sanders; Hearsay & opposing-party statements under MRE 801(c), 801(d)(2)(A), & 803(4); People v LaLone

The court held that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over the child (MT) with respect to respondent-father, but it also held that removal from the father’s care had to be reversed because the trial court failed to make the statutorily required findings on each factor governing preliminary removal. The petition’s allegations as to the father concerned domestic violence. The trial court both authorized the petition and removed MT from the father’s care. On appeal, the court first held that the removal order could not stand because, although the trial court addressed some of the statutory factors, it “does not appear to have considered any alternatives short of removal” under MCL 712A.13a(9)(b), and the record on subsection (e) was too ambiguous to permit “meaningful appellate review.” The court stressed that “the trial court is required to make specific factual findings for each of the factors listed under MCL 712A.13a(9) before removing a child from custody,” making the failure to address subsection (b) “dispositive.” The court next held that jurisdiction was nonetheless proper under MCL 712A.2(b)(2) because, even excluding hearsay statements attributed to respondent-mother, her live testimony established that the father had been abusing her “on a regular basis for the last two years,” and that on one occasion MT “was an incidental victim of the physical violence” when struck by a bottle thrown by the father. Giving deference to the trial court’s credibility findings, the court concluded that it did not clearly err in finding jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.