Assumption of jurisdiction; MCL 712A.2(b)(1); Hearsay; Statements admitted to show the impact they had on the listener; Harmless error

The court held that the statements respondent-father challenged as hearsay were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It further concluded that any error in admitting the testimony would have been harmless because other evidence supported the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the children under MCL 712A.2(b)(1). Thus, it affirmed the order assuming jurisdiction. It concluded that the testimony referring to incidents in which a child was hospitalized and tested positive for marijuana in the one instance and had ingested trazodone in the other was “not introduced to establish that respondent’s child had, in fact, ingested these substances.” Rather, it was “introduced to provide a history of the family’s interactions with CPS since [12/23] that ultimately led to the filing of the petition in this case. Because these statements were not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show the impact they had on the listener and the listener’s subsequent actions, they were not hearsay and” thus, were admissible. The court added that, even if the jury had not heard them, testimony about the conditions in the home “would have led the jury to find that remaining in the home posed a substantial risk to the children’s mental wellbeing under MCL 712A.2(b)(1).” Caseworkers testified that during a 5/24 “home visit, they observed clutter and dog feces on the floor, and noted the smell of urine. During the [7/24] home visit, they observed that the home was in a worse condition, with a foul odor, more dog feces, old food, and dirty dishes throughout the home. There was also testimony that there was an unsecured handgun, ammunition, and a vape on a TV stand in the living room.” And respondent admitted that, in 7/24, “he was unable to care for the children due to his medical condition.”