Background
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) petitioned in March 2025 to remove AMH, a minor child, from the care of respondent-father. At the time, the child’s mother held sole legal and physical custody, with informal parenting time coordinated with respondent. After a preliminary hearing, the trial court ordered the child removed from respondent’s care and placed with the mother under supervision of Intensive Neglect Services (INS). The child was subsequently removed from the mother’s care as well after she refused to cooperate with INS and Children’s Protective Services (CPS).
Respondent sought placement of the child in his home, which CPS found physically suitable following two home visits. CPS nonetheless recommended against placement due to ongoing allegations of domestic violence by respondent against the child’s mother. At the adjudication hearing, the trial court heard testimony from police officers, CPS employees, and the mother, who described at least 10–12 prior assaults. Specific incidents included respondent ransacking the mother’s bedroom in January 2025, a physical assault during which he took her cell phone, and a September 2024 assault that occurred while the child played outside. Respondent denied most allegations but acknowledged a prior prison sentence for assaulting the mother. The trial court also noted that respondent drove without a license and continued driving during a Zoom court hearing even after being directed to stop.
The trial court found the mother’s testimony credible and respondent’s testimony lacking credibility, noting that respondent was argumentative and denied even thoroughly substantiated allegations. It found that a preponderance of the evidence established statutory grounds for jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) (substantial risk of harm to the child’s mental wellbeing) and MCL 712A.2(b)(2) (unfit home or environment due to cruelty, depravity, or criminality by a parent).
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction, reviewing the jurisdictional question de novo and the underlying factual findings for clear error. The panel held that a preponderance of the evidence supported both statutory bases for jurisdiction. Respondent’s repeated criminal acts in the mother’s home — including theft, property destruction, and physical assaults, with the most recent occurring in January 2025 — constituted cruelty, criminality, and depravity sufficient to render the home environment unfit under MCL 712A.2(b)(2). The court cited its prior decision in In re Sluiter for the proposition that domestic violence reflects cruelty and criminality and that a home where it repeatedly occurs is not a fit environment for a child.
The court rejected respondent’s argument that the evidence of a stable home with his other two children negated jurisdiction. It reasoned that, within the same time frame, respondent had engaged in criminal conduct and domestic assaults directed at this child’s mother in the child’s home environment, creating a substantial risk of harm to the child’s mental wellbeing regardless of conditions in respondent’s own household. The court further emphasized that the statute does not require domestic violence to have occurred in the child’s presence in order to support a finding of an unfit environment.
Key Takeaways
- Under MCL 712A.2(b)(2), domestic violence against a co-parent constitutes cruelty and criminality that can render a home environment unfit for a child even if the violence did not occur directly in front of the child.
- A respondent’s stable home environment with other children does not preclude a finding of jurisdiction over a different child where the respondent engaged in domestic violence in that child’s home environment during the same period.
- Trial courts are afforded deference on credibility determinations in adjudication hearings; a respondent’s argumentative demeanor and denial of substantiated allegations supports a finding that the respondent lacks credibility.
- The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard at the adjudicative phase requires only that the evidence supporting jurisdiction have greater probability of truth than the evidence against it — a relatively low threshold.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Michigan courts will look at a parent’s overall pattern of conduct across all relevant environments when assessing jurisdiction in child protective proceedings, not merely the conditions inside the parent’s own home at the moment of the hearing. Attorneys representing respondents in adjudication hearings should be aware that evidence of suitable conditions in a parent’s home will not necessarily overcome proof of recent, repeated domestic violence directed at the other parent, even when that violence occurred in a separate residence.
The case also underscores the breadth of MCL 712A.2(b)(2): the “unfit environment” inquiry is not limited to acts witnessed by the child. Combined with the court’s reliance on In re Sluiter, practitioners should expect Michigan courts to continue treating domestic violence as a freestanding basis for jurisdiction where the pattern of abuse is documented and ongoing.