Child’s removal; MCR 3.965(C)(2); MCL 712A.13a(9); Preponderance of the evidence standard; Harmless error; Sufficiency of the evidence to exercise jurisdiction; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2)

The court held that the trial court plainly erred in applying the probable cause standard, rather than the preponderance of the evidence standard, in deciding to remove the child (ZH), but that the error was harmless as it was not outcome-determinative. It also held that the trial court applied the proper standard in making its adjudicative decision, and did not clearly err in exercising jurisdiction over ZH under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). As to the removal order, the court concluded “there was substantial evidence by which the trial court could find by a preponderance of the evidence that” respondent-father’s custody of ZH posed “‘a substantial risk of harm to [ZH’s] life, physical health, or mental well-being,’ MCR 3.965(C)(2)(a), and was contrary to ZH’s welfare, MCR 3.965(C)(2)(c). Respondent was involved in two instances of domestic violence while ZH was present, and alcohol was involved in one of them. Although respondent was not charged for these incidents, their occurrence indicates that the home environment was unstable.” The court noted he “admitted that his substance use impaired his ability to parent.” It determined that the trial court’s finding that “no solution other than removal was reasonably available” was not clearly erroneous, nor was the finding that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for it. The trial court was also justified in finding that respondent’s stepfather’s (W) home was a suitable placement for ZH without respondent there. As to the adjudication decision, while “ZH received proper custody or guardianship under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) because he was placed with” W in a suitable home, “there was sufficient evidence to determine that ZH was at a substantial risk of harm to his mental well-being” due to respondent’s conduct. Sufficient evidence also supported jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(2). “The evidence that ZH witnessed violence in the home involving respondent was enough to make the home environment unfit when respondent was there” and such a finding was not precluded by his lack of a criminal conviction. Affirmed.