In Re Miller Minors ( 2023 )

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
In re MILLER, Minors. October 19, 2023
No. 365297
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 10-127138-NA
Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and JANSEN and CAMERON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-mother appeals as of right the order authorizing the petition and exercising
jurisdiction over the minor children, JTM and JAM. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In September 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a petition
to remove the children from respondent-mother’s care. According to DHHS, respondent-mother
was frequently intoxicated and, while in this state, she kicked the children out of the house. The
children phoned a family friend who allowed the children to stay in her home. The trial court
authorized the petition after hearing testimony about these circumstances. This appeal followed.
II. JURISDICTION
Respondent-mother argues the trial court erred when it found statutory grounds for
jurisdiction. Specifically, she believes there was no evidence she failed to provide the children
proper care and custody. We disagree.
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Whether a trial court can assert jurisdiction over a child protective proceeding is a question
of law we review de novo.” In re Hull, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket
No. 361537); slip op at 3. A trial court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction is reviewed for clear
error. In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286, 295; 690 NW2d 505 (2004). “A finding of fact is clearly
erroneous if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed, giving due regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to observe the witnesses.” Id.-1-
at 296-297. Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. In re Hull, ___ Mich App
at ___; slip op at 3.
When interpreting statutes, our primary task is to discern and give effect to
the intent of the Legislature. To accomplish that task, we begin by examining the
language of the statute itself. If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the
Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must
be enforced as written. [In re COH, ERH, JRG, & KBH, 495 Mich 184, 195; 848
NW2d 107 (2014) (alterations, quotation marks, and citations omitted).]
B. ANALYSIS
MCL 712A.2(b) governs a court’s jurisdiction in child protection proceedings. The statute
states, in relevant part:
Jurisdiction in proceedings concerning a juvenile under 18 years of age
found within the county:
(1) Whose parent or other person legally responsible for the care and
maintenance of the juvenile, when able to do so, neglects or refuses to provide
proper or necessary support, education, medical, surgical, or other care necessary
for his or her health or morals, who is subject to a substantial risk of harm to his or
her mental well-being, who is abandoned by his or her parents, guardian, or other
custodian, or who is without proper custody or guardianship.
In finding statutory grounds for jurisdiction, the trial court stated:
The testimony was that she has taken approximately $5,000 from [JTM] but still
owes $9,000 to Consumers. So it renders the home environment an unfit place by
reason of neglect, cruelty, or drunkenness and criminality I believe. It’s created an
unfit home environment for the children.
I believe that she has neglected or refused to provide the proper and
necessary support, education, or other care necessary.
I believe that she’s also subjected the children to a substantial risk of harm
based upon her, her alcoholism and her refusal to care for the children and she
kicked them out of the house. And also just her alcoholism has rendered her an
unfit parent. She is unable to provide for them appropriately.
As I believe that the agency has shown this by a preponderance of the
evidence, so DHHS has met its burden, the Court is going to assume jurisdiction
over [respondent-mother] at this point in time.
According to respondent-mother, the trial court erred in exercising jurisdiction under MCL
712A.2(b). She asserts the children were not without proper custody because they were staying
with a family friend. Respondent-mother misunderstands MCL 712A.2(b).
-2-
This statute uses the word “or” to describe the various circumstances in which a trial court
may find grounds for jurisdiction. Thus, the Legislature plainly intended that jurisdiction need
only be found in one of the circumstances cited in MCL 712A.2(b). The trial court noted several
grounds for jurisdiction, but did not include a finding respondent-mother left the children without
“proper custody or guardianship.” Even so, respondent-mother’s argument on appeal only
challenges that portion of the statute. She does not explain why the trial court erred with regard to
the other grounds for jurisdiction cited in its findings. Because grounds for jurisdiction may be
found on a variety of grounds, and respondent-mother does not specifically challenge the cited
grounds for jurisdiction, there is no basis for this Court to reverse the trial court’s exercise of
jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Thomas C. Cameron
-3-