Jurisdiction over a child; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2); Factual findings

After remand for the ‘“appropriate findings of fact’ and for ‘articulation of a jurisdictional analysis that is amenable to appellate review’ of the [trial] court’s denial of jurisdiction in this child protective proceeding,” the court concluded that the issues and evidence were not properly before it. “Ultimately, the trial court considered the record evidence (or lack thereof) and assessed the credibility of the witnesses presenting conflicting stories before concluding grounds to take jurisdiction over the children were lacking.” The court had “no ground to interfere with those factual findings and” thus affirmed. It advised “the DHHS that it may file a new petition if warranted after gathering evidence to be presented to the” trial court.