JUVENILE CASELAW UPDATE

BY JAMES PERRY (BAY)

CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS
 
Michigan Supreme Court
 
In re D V Lange, Minor, No 166509, Wayne County Circuit Court Family Division, April 14, 2025
 
Adjudication case.  The trial court did not extend jurisdiction over DVL.  DVL suffered from PTSD, ODD, ADHD, and RAD.  While he was hospitalized, the Department looked for an appropriate placement.  The hospital determined he was ready for discharge without a placement having been found.  DVL’s mother refused to pick him up from the hospital, citing concerns for her other children and pets based on DVL’s behaviors.  The Department filed a petition for DVL.  The trial court declined to exercise jurisdiction, finding no neglectful conduct by mother due to DVL’s mental health issues and that mother sought treatment for him.
 
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the trial court was reversed.  The Court of Appeals determined that jurisdiction was appropriate under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2).  DVL’s mother refused to pick him up from the hospital or provide him with outpatient treatment for his mental health, which provided bases for jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
 
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.  The Supreme Court held that “’able to do so’ as used [in] MCL 712A.2(b)(1) means that a parent must have ‘sufficient power, skill, or resources’ to provide necessary care or necessary support.”  The Supreme Court also held that “’negligent’ for purposes of MCL 722.602(1)(d) [as part of MCL 712A.2(b)(2)] as failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances.”  Because DVL’s mother sought treatment for him, which was unsuccessful, and he was a danger to her other children, her actions in not picking him up from the hospital did not provide jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) or (2). 
 
In re Barber/Espinoza, Minors, No 167745, Lenawee County Circuit Court Family Division, July 31, 2025
 
Aggravated circumstances and an adjudication case.  Two children were involved.  Mother was alleged to have allowed men to sexually abuse CB, including once in exchange for drugs.  The trial court found jurisdiction for adjudication under MCL 712A.2b(1) and (2) and terminated parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and (ii), and 19b(3)(j).  The trial court made a judicial determination of aggravated circumstances under MCL 722.638(2), because mother was a suspected perpetrator of sexual abuse or placed CB at an unreasonable risk of harm and failed to take reasonable steps to protect her.
 
The Court of Appeals reversed.  Mother was not the perpetrator of the sexual abuse so there were no aggravated circumstances.  Without aggravated circumstances, the Department was required to provide reasonable efforts to reunify the children.  Additional error was made by the trial court not advising mother of her right to appeal the removal.
 
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the termination of mother’s parental rights.  Aggravated circumstances existed because mother facilitated the sexual abuse of her child, even if she did not perpetrate the sexual penetration herself.  Mother also placed her child at an unreasonable risk of harm and failed to take reasonable steps to protect her child by allowing the sexual abuse.  The trial court did err in not advising mother of her right to appeal the removal.  The children were placed with their nonrespondent father and mother’s inability to participate in decisions regarding their care or exercise parenting time constituted a removal.  The error, however, was not outcome determinative.

Court of Appeals
Published decisions
 
In re KV, Minor, No. 374236, Lenawee Circuit Court Family Division, September 08, 2025
 
Aggravated circumstances case based on anticipatory neglect.  Father was alleged to have sexually abused his biological daughter and her stepsister.  The stepsister testified to sexual abuse by father.  The biological daughter testified to sexual abuse by her stepbrothers, but not by father.  The trial court found abuse of the stepsister but not of father’s biological daughter.  The trial court took jurisdiction and terminated parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing based on anticipatory neglect. 
 
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that anticipatory neglect was not a ground for aggravated circumstances.  The following procedural holding is now applicable to all aggravated circumstances cases:
 
“These provisions together create a four-step process when DHHS seeks termination at the initial disposition. First, DHHS must establish jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b) by a preponderance of the evidence.  Second, it must prove “by clear and convincing evidence that aggravated circumstances exist in order to excuse the reasonable-efforts requirement” under MCL 712A.19a(2)(a).  Third, DHHS must demonstrate, again by clear and convincing evidence, one of the statutory grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3).  Fourth, the court must determine by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the child’s best interests.” [internal citations omitted.]
         
Unpublished decisions
 
In re Woodbury/Drayton, Minors, No 374139, St Joseph County Circuit Court Family Division, September 19, 2025
 
Evidentiary issue from an adjudication bench trial.  Mother was suffering from a mental health episode.   She was live streaming on Facebook Live and appeared to need hospitalization.  The two children were removed.  An investigating police officer viewed different videos of Mother’s statements and conditions, which were not saved.  The officer was shown five different videos of Mother during his testimony.  The five different videos were offered to show how Mother was acting in the days leading up to the interaction with police and her voluntary hospitalization.  The officer could not identify specifically when the videos were made.  The trial court admitted the videos over the objection of Mother’s attorney.
 
The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the five videos had been authenticated under MRE 901(a).  “First, the trial court must determine ‘whether there is sufficient reason
to believe that the evidence is what its proponent claims for purposes of admission into evidence.’ Next, the fact-finder determines ‘whether the evidence is, in fact, what its proponent claims for purposes of evidentiary weight and reliability.’  Evidence does not need to ‘be free from all doubt to be authenticated for purpose of admission.’”  [internal citations omitted.]
 
The Court of Appeals determined the authentication of the five videos was a close call.  The videos should have been excluded.  Their inclusion, however, did not require reversal.  Mother could not establish that a different outcome was likely if the five videos had been excluded.
 
In re IC Mckay, Minor, No 375047, Saginaw County Circuit Court Family Division, September 17, 2025
 
Removal order appeal.  Mother appealed the Ex Parte Order removing the children.  A preliminary hearing was held in December 2024.  In March 2025, after an incident of domestic violence between the parents with the child present, a referee issued an Ex Parte Order removing the children.  The parents were both intoxicated.  Mother was arrested.  Father left to go to work.  The referee made specific findings in the Ex Parte Order satisfying the requirements of MCR 3.963(B)(1).  The Court of Appeals approved the findings and affirmed the decision.
 
In re McCrimmon/Williams, Minors, No 373547, Wayne County Circuit Court Family Division, September 16, 2025
 
Removal order appeal.  Mother had three children, one was placed with a non-respondent father, and two others with a relative.  Upon the death of the relative, the other two children were placed in foster care.  The trial court articulated a basis for the findings from MCL 712A.13a(9) after testimony was taken from the Department’s worker.  One of the children had been assaulted by mother, while she was holding another of the children.  Mother received reasonable efforts prior to the removal.
 
The Court of Appeals held the removal was warranted as to all three children – even though MCL 712A.13a(9) only applies to placement in foster care, not with a relative.  Based on the record created by the trial court, the other two children were at a risk of harm based on the doctrine of anticipatory neglect. 
 
In re M Green, Minor, No 372646, Genesee Circuit Court Family Division, September 12, 2025
 
Termination of parental rights case.  Trial court terminated parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (g), and (j).  The trial court also found termination was the child’s best interests.  Mother had a chronic substance use disorder. 
 
The Court of Appeals reversed the grounds for termination of parental rights.  The use of (c)(i) was clear error because termination was at the initial dispositional hearing, not 182 days or more after disposition.  The other three grounds were forward looking grounds.  “Where a statutory ground contains forward-looking language, the past failure of a respondent to provide care is not decisive.”  Mother had made changes and was involved in substance use rehabilitation.  The trial court did not make specific findings as to each ground, lumping them all into a finding of clear and convincing evidence.
 
In re Alfadawi, Minors, No 371381, Wayne Circuit Court Family Division, July 18, 2025
 
Best interests analysis case.  The trial court found sexual abuse of a daughter.  In the best interests finding, the trial court focused on father, finding he was not “an absentee parent,” discussed respondent’s state of mind during the sexual assault, characterized the sexual assault as an “isolated incident,” and determined that father could have the capacity to change. 
 
The Court of Appeals reversed the best interests finding.  The Court of Appeals found the trial court committed clear error by not focusing on the children’s interests or any of the recognized best interest factors.  The children were placed with their mother, a relative, which “weighs against termination, but it is not dispositive.” 
 
 
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
 
Court of Appeals
Unpublished
 
In re Reynero, Minor, No 370509, Tuscola County Circuit Court Family Division, September 16, 2025
 
Adjudication by plea case.  Trial court failed to advise the juvenile of placement in a residential facility as a possible consequence of the plea.  The juvenile was on probation and committed a Retail Fraud Third Degree.  The trial court combined the disposition with a dispositional review hearing.  The probation officer recommended, among other things, placement in a residential facility, which the trial court ordered.  The juvenile appealed, arguing the plea was not understandingly made because the juvenile was not advised of the potential for placement in a residential facility at disposition during the adjudication.
 
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding the plea was not understandingly made because the juvenile was not advised, per MCR 3.941(C)(1)(b), of the possible direct outcomes of the plea.  The failure to comply with the court rule substantially affected the outcome of the case, because the juvenile had a right to a trial.  As a consequence, the adjudication and dispositions were vacated.