Removal & placement in foster care; MCL 712A.13a(9); MCR 3.965(C)(2); The trial court’s factual findings; Rittershaus v Rittershaus; Anticipatory neglect; In re LaFrance

The court held that the trial court did not err by removing the children from respondent-mother’s care. They were removed on the basis of abuse and neglect. On appeal, the court rejected respondent’s argument that the trial court failed to make all the required factual findings prescribed by MCL 712A.13a(9) and MCR 3.965(C) before removing them from her care. It concluded the record supported “the trial court’s findings of substantial risk of harm to the children’s lives, physical health, or mental well-being, as required under MCL 712A.13a(9)(a).” And it was “reasonable for the trial court to conclude that more than one incident had caused the children’s injuries, and whether those incidents occurred over days or weeks, all three children were at a substantial risk of harm if they remained in” her care. In addition, her contention that she complied with all the medical recommendations and otherwise exercised proper supervision was without merit. Further, her “reluctance to consent to a CT scan was not the sole factor in the trial court’s decision concerning improper care. It was part of the totality of circumstances that the trial court considered in determining that the children were at a substantial risk in” her care. Moreover, respondent’s “claim that there was no evidence that her home was unsuitable misses the mark. The key issue was [her] ability to keep the children safe as their caregiver, not the physical attributes of the home.” Finally, the trial court did not err by removing the children under the doctrine of anticipatory neglect. Given the evidence, it did not err by “finding, for purposes of MCL 712A.13a(9)(b), that no adequate safeguards could be employed for the children to remain safely in [her] care because she at least shared the responsibility for the children’s non-accidental serious injuries. Similarly, remaining in the home would have been contrary to the children’s welfare for purposes of MCL 712A.13a(9)(c).” Further, the trial court’s placement of two of the children “in a licensed foster care home was adequate to safeguard the children’s health and welfare, and the trial court ordered the DHHS to make reasonable efforts to work with [respondent] with the goal of returning the children safely to her home.” Affirmed.