Assumption of jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1); “Neglect” (MCL 722.602(1)(d)); “Negligent”; In re Lange; Due process

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in exercising jurisdiction over the child (BGS) under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and rejecting respondent-mother’s due process claims, the court affirmed the order assuming jurisdiction. The trial court heard evidence that, despite hospital staff “repeatedly informing respondent that the hospital was not equipped to provide neonatal or obstetrics care and that respondent and BGS would need to be transferred after BGS was born to ensure that BGS was properly cared for, respondent initially refused all attempts to transfer BGS to a suitable hospital. This was despite not only the risks that this refusal posed to BGS but the actual issues that BGS was experiencing with her health in the hours” after her birth. The court concluded that the evidence supported the trial “court’s finding that, despite being able to do so, respondent refused to provide proper medical care that was necessary for BGS’s health.” It also supported the “finding that BGS was harmed by respondent’s negligent refusal to allow BGS to receive proper medical care—a reasonably prudent person in respondent’s position would not have waited to address BGS’s medical issues and would have immediately permitted BGS to be transferred to a hospital that could provide the” needed care. The court also found that the record did not support her due process claims. While she asserted that the trial court heavily relied on her prior cases involving other children, it “did not even mention” them in finding that exercising jurisdiction here was proper. As to her challenge to its factual findings, they were supported by hospital staff “testimony about the actual harm that respondent’s actions and decisions caused BGS and the medical records reflecting the same.” Finally, the trial court’s finding of jurisdiction was supported by sufficient evidence.