Jurisdiction; MCL 712A.2(b)(2); Child’s best interests; Ineffective assistance of counsel for waiving the probable cause determination at the preliminary hearing

In these consolidated child-welfare appeals, the court affirmed the trial court’s order taking jurisdiction over the children (IG and MK). Respondents-parents argued that the trial court’s determination “to take jurisdiction over the children was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” The trial court acknowledged that DHHS “did not present any evidence that the safety plan was violated or that it was a crime for” a registered sex offender (L) to be in the home, “but still found that the children were at risk when in the home, not just because of criminality, but also because of depravity.” It expressed concern that the DHHS permitted L “to be in the home in the first place and viewed the conduct of mother and father allowing [L] to enter the home repeatedly while IG was present as ‘indefensible.’” The trial court additionally noted the father “was previously accused of physical and sexual abuse. The trial court expressed that it was ‘very concerned’ about MK’s sexually acting out when she was younger. And it was further concerned that, after these incidents, father took MK on work trips in his truck, and there had been past allegations of inappropriate touching by father.” The trial court determined “that it was ‘clear that these children are living in chaotic situations. Where it’s neglect or it’s criminality, it’s not a safe environment for either one.’” Based on its review of the record, the court found no error in the trial court’s decision to take jurisdiction.