Removal; Risk of harm; MCL 712A.13a(9)(a); MCR 3.965(C)(2)(a); Alternative to removal

Concluding that the trial court did not clearly err by holding that there existed a risk of harm to the child (RW) in respondent-mother’s “care and that no alternatives to removal were reasonably available,” the court affirmed “the trial court’s order authorizing the petition and removing RW from respondent’s care following a preliminary hearing.” Respondent argued that the trial court failed to make factual findings as to “whether allowing RW to remain in her care presented a substantial risk of harm to RW’s life, physical health, or mental well-being under MCL 712A.13a(9)(a) and MCR 3.965(C)(2)(a).” The court disagreed. “The trial court determined that respondent’s mother, with whom respondent lived, had health problems, was confined to a wheelchair, and was unable to care for RW. Nonetheless, respondent repeatedly left RW alone in the home with her mother while she used” meth with RW’s biological father, AG. It recognized that her “conduct created a ‘very dangerous situation.’” The trial court also found that she “had a ‘very dangerous’ relationship with AG, who encouraged her to use” meth. Its findings were not clearly erroneous. The record showed “that respondent’s living environment involves domestic violence and substance abuse.” CPS investigator T “testified that respondent tested positive for meth[] five times after RW’s birth and that she repeatedly left RW in a bassinet and took a baby monitor outside to AG’s vehicle to use” meth with him. Respondent also told T “that AG punched her in the face and that bystanders had called the police. [T] suggested that respondent obtain a personal protection order against AG, but she failed to do so and continued using [meth] with him. Based on respondent’s consistent drug abuse and continued involvement with AG, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that there existed a substantial risk of harm to RW’s life, physical health, or mental well-being in respondent’s care.” Respondent also argued “that the trial court failed to make factual findings regarding whether any service or arrangement except RW’s removal from respondent’s care was reasonably available to safeguard the child from the risk of harm.” The record failed “to support respondent’s argument.” The trial court determined that T “made reasonable efforts to help respondent with her substance abuse and avoid removing RW from respondent’s care.” Its order noted that the DHHS offered her several services. In addition, the trial court recognized that her “environment included ‘triggers’ that made it unsafe for RW to remain in respondent’s home.” The record supported the trial court’s findings. T testified that respondent was still using meth “and failed to comply with the services offered to her. Families First was the most intensive service available, but it was a 28-day program and, at the time of the hearing, respondent’s allotted time with that service was about to expire. [T] also looked into placing RW with family members, but respondent’s mother was unable to care for RW and respondent’s sister was not an option. Therefore, our review of the record shows that the trial court did not clearly err by finding that an alternative to removal was not reasonably available.”