In re A. M. Sluiter, Minor

• Opinion Published: June 20, 2024 (O’Brien, P.J., and M.J. Kelly and Feeney, JJ.) 

• Docket No. 368266 

• Wexford Circuit Court Family Division

Holding: Where a respondent-parent challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in a child-neglect case adjudication by jury trial, the Court of Appeals will review the evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioner and considers whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact in finding jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Because this review is deferential, a reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict, and it is for the trier of fact, not the appellate court, to determine what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence and to determine the weight to be accorded those inferences.

Facts: The minor child, AMS, was removed from Respondent-Father based on allegations that he was sexually abusing and neglecting AMS. Respondent-Father had a history of abusive behavior towards his family, such as choking AMS’s mother, slamming her against a wall, verbally abusing AMS’s mother, yelling in front of AMS, and exploiting AMS sexually repeatedly. After an extensive investigation, a warrant was put out for Respondent-Father’s arrest for criminal sexual conduct charges. During a routine traffic stop, Respondent-Father fled the scene, causing an 18-mile police chase until Respondent-Father was apprehended by a canine unit. During his three-day adjudication jury trial, Respondent-Father testified he was not aware that he had a warrant out for his arrest, but rather that he did not pull over because he was “contacted by the Supreme Court…to make a complaint on corruption on what had taken place between CPS and [the] friend of the court.” According to Respondent-Father’s own testimony, he was told that the Supreme Court would “have his back” if he was correct about some conspiracy of “corruption” between CPS and the Friend of the Court. Moreover, the father testified he was being targeted “for the last five years” by CPS and the Friend of the Court, so much so that state police wrote up a 58-page police report that documented all the “corruption” that took place since 2018, and that prosecutors refused to file charges against this “corruption.”   

The jury was not persuaded by Respondent-Father's testimony and found that the trial court had jurisdiction over AMS. The father appealed to the Court of Appeals and argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s decision that allowed the Wexford County Circuit Court jurisdiction over AMS.

Key Appellate Rulings 

Respondent parents in child welfare or termination of parental rights cases do not have to take special steps to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence used to adjudicate that parent for appeal. 

Although the Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v Bach Services & Manufacturing, LLC, __ Mich App __; ___ NW3d ___ (Docket No. 359090, issued 6/15/2023) case holds that the “raise or waive” rule applies in civil cases rather than the plain error rule, Tolas explicitly exempted termination of parental rights cases due to the constitutional considerations in those cases. As Tolas only exempted termination cases, rather than adjudication cases, the Court of Appeals held, as the Court does for criminal cases, that it was not necessary for respondent to move for a directed verdict at the adjudication trial in order to preserve for appeal the argument that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial for the trial court to assume jurisdiction. 

As a jury does not make findings of fact, the clear error standard of review is inapplicable to adjudication by jury trial cases. A new standard of review, such as found in criminal jury trial cases, is therefore necessary. 

While the Court of Appeals noted parties in adjudication appeals often cite In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286, 295; 690 NW2d 505 (2004) and the clear error standard of review, the Court found this standard could not be applied to adjudications completed by jury trial because the jury merely announces a verdict, it does not make the factual findings necessary to employ the clear error standard. Because the oft-cited standard of review was found to be inapplicable, and because of the dearth of case law on this issue, the Court set forth a new standard of review for a case “where a respondent-parent appeals and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in a child-neglect case where adjudication was done by jury trial.” The Court of Appeals held, based on a modified version of the standard of review announced in People v Oros, 502 Mich 229, 239; 917 NW2d 559 (2018), that appellate courts will now “[determine] whether sufficient evidence exists to sustain a jury’s verdict finding jurisdiction in a child-neglect proceeding.” This is done when a court examines the evidence “in the light most favorable to the petitioner, and [consider] whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact in finding jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” This review is deferential and a reviewing court “is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict. And it ‘is for the trier of fact, not the appellate court, to determine what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence and to determine the weight to be accorded those inferences.’” People v Hardiman, 466 Mich 417, 428; 646 NW2d 158 (2002). 

Therefore, when a court alleges jurisdiction under both MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2), a reviewing court must, under the new standard, determine if any of the statutory grounds were met by a preponderance of the evidence. Applying this new standard of review to Respondent-Father's case, the Court of Appeals affirmed.