Jurisdiction over the minor children; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2); In re Long; Anticipatory-neglect doctrine

The court affirmed the trial court’s order denying jurisdiction over the minor children in this case under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). The DHHS asserted “that the trial court erred by not acknowledging that a preponderance of the evidence indicated that respondents demonstrated negligence in their care of their deceased child.” Further, the DHHS highlighted “that respondents have previously been subject to investigations by [CPS], thereby invoking the anticipatory-neglect doctrine in this context.” Also, the DHHS argued that the state of their “apartment provided adequate grounds for the trial court to establish jurisdiction.” As to MCL 712A.2(b)(2), the record was clear that the DHHS “did not provide substantial evidence or expert testimony to demonstrate that the respondents’ residence was an unsuitable environment for a minor child.” As referenced in Long, the only evidence presented by the DHHS “indicated that the apartment was cluttered, which does not satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.” Thus, the trial court was correct in holding that the DHHS “failed to meet its burden of proof.” As to MCL 712A.2(b)(1), the evidence submitted by the DHHS “was limited solely to the decedent’s medical needs, the medical care received, and the cause of death. There was a notable absence of evidence regarding the care and living conditions of the other minor children involved in this case.” Also, the anticipatory-neglect doctrine was “not convincingly applicable here, especially given the significant medical needs of the decedent rather than those of the other children.” As it pertained to MCL 712A.2(b)(1), the DHHS “failed to present any evidence regarding the care or conditions of the other minor children in this matter.” Further, the anticipatory-neglect doctrine was “not persuasive in this matter, given the significant medical needs that the decedent had, and no evidence was presented establishing that any of the other minor children had the same required level of care. The anticipatory-neglect doctrine is not an absolute method for establishing jurisdiction; instead, it is a permissible inference whose weight may shift considerably depending on the facts in a given matter. In this case, given the lack of evidence presented by [the DHHS], the trial court had no other choice than to attribute very little weight to the anticipatory-neglect doctrine, and [it] did not clearly err by doing so.”