FIA V. SMEDBERG, (#260750, Unpublished), Michigan Court of Appeals, August 2, 2005
Juvenile Review MenuThe minor child was removed from respondent’s care when he was born because of concern that respondents were unable to care for the minor child and because respondents’ parental rights to the minor child’s sister had previously been terminated. Respondents objected to jurisdiction as they resided in another county and the trial court overruled. A jury trial was held on the issue of jurisdiction and the jury unanimously held that the trial court had jurisdiction over the minor child. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction for clear error. The Court of Appeals found that pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b) that the trial court did not err in assuming jurisdiction as the minor child was “found within the county”. According to MCR 3.926 a child is “found within the county” if the child is “physically present” in that county.
The Court of Appeals also reviewed the finding that statutory grounds for termination had been established by clear and convincing evidence. Under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) and (l), “[t]he court may terminate a parent’s rights to a child if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence” that “there is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the child’s parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is returned to the home of the parent” and/or that the “parent’s rights to another child were terminated as a result of proceedings…” The mother had received services in the past and was unable to understand and grasp basic parenting concepts and skills. She admitted to being unable to care for the minor child and needed help in doing so. The father was an alcoholic, attended the termination hearing smelling of alcohol, and did not understand that mother was unable to care for the minor child. Evidence showed that the minor child was not on target developmentally and had tremors that may have indicated fetal alcohol syndrome. The trial court also based its decision on the fact that the minor child’s sister had previously been removed from the home due to lack of adequate care. The trial court ultimately concluded that there was a reasonable likelihood that the minor child would be harmed not only because of how they treated the minor child’s sister but because they were in no better position at the time of the termination trial to better parent this child. The Court of Appeals affirms the trial court’s finding of a lack of ability to care for the minor child and find it proper for the court to look at respondent’s prior actions with regard to the minor child’s sister under the doctrine of anticipatory neglect.
Return to Calhoun County Courts Home Page
Last updated: 9-13-05
Send your comments, questions and suggestions to Phil Harter at 161
E Michigan Avenue, Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
or e mail to pharter@calhouncountymi.gov