The trial court in this child-protective proceeding did not “articulate an adequate basis or make sufficient factual findings to justify its denial of jurisdiction” over the minor child, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

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 case of In re Holbrook, Minor - which involves alleged parental neglect and the statutory grounds for taking jurisdiction over a minor child - is moot.

The trial court erroneously held that statutory grounds for terminating the respondents’ parental rights had been established by clear and convincing 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.

The order from which the respondent appealed in this termination of parental rights case was not a “final order” pursuant to the court rules, a Michigan Court of Appeals majority has decided.

Hockett, a published and binding opinion from Oct. 2021, concerns whether a trial court had sufficient statutory grounds to exercise jurisdiction over a minor child who has mental health issues.

The MI SCT is set to hear oral arguments on the application to appeal the decision in In re Holbrook, Minor, a case involving statutory grounds for a trial court to take jurisdiction over a minor.

The trial court properly denied DHHS’ petition to take jurisdiction over the respondent’s child because the statutory grounds for doing so were not established.

The day after the baby was born, the midwife told the parents it was suffering from jaundice. The parents didn’t take the baby to the doctor, electing to pray for the baby’s good health instead.