The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s order on the basis that the Trial Court could not take jurisdiction because the minor child is protected under a no-contact order with Respondent and the minor child is living in a fit home environment with the non-respondent mother, who has been protecting the minor child and meeting her needs.

The trial court wrongly held that the statutory grounds for jurisdiction over the child were established by a preponderance of the evidence.

DHHS’s petition to terminate parental rights was declined because the petition did not establish probable cause that the father posed a substantial risk of harm to the children’s mental well-being.