in Re J R Kellogg Minor, 952 N.W.2d 544

DHHS petition (Mar 2019) sought removal and jurisdiction over two children: DF (age 12, history of removal 2008–2017, trauma and diagnoses) and JK (age 3, always in respondent’s care).
Petition alleged respondent yelled aggressively, used harsh/unpredictable punishment, failed to benefit from prior services, and had mental-health issues; allegations specific to JK were limited to verbal aggression and emotional dysregulation by respondent.
At bench trial the court assumed jurisdiction over both children under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) (neglect/substantial risk of harm) and (b)(2) (unfit home environment) and entered adjudication and disposition orders.
Evidence included a 2008 psychological evaluation (not admitted), a 2017 evaluation by Dr. Spahn (admitted) finding essentially normative functioning, testimony about respondent’s yelling/swearing at JK (one flinch), inconsistent attendance at a program addressing JK’s speech delay, and testimony that respondent bonded more closely with JK than with DF.
The trial court did not find physical abuse or severe impairment of JK; petitioner pressed both direct grounds and the doctrine of anticipatory neglect (treatment of DF probative of likely treatment of JK).
The Court of Appeals vacated the adjudication and dispositional order as to JK and remanded, holding there was no independent factual basis to assume jurisdiction over JK and anticipatory-neglect was insufficient given marked differences between the children.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory grounds existed under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2) to assume jurisdiction over JK	Respondent’s mental-health, verbal aggression, educational neglect, inconsistent rules, and difficulty managing JK created substantial risk or an unfit home	Evidence insufficient: 2017 psych was normative; no physical abuse; isolated yelling and stress reactions do not prove substantial risk or unfit home	Vacated adjudication/disposition for JK — clear error to find jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1)/(2) on this record
Whether the doctrine of anticipatory neglect could supply jurisdiction for JK based on DF’s adjudication	Treatment of DF shows probable similar risk to JK; court may infer likely treatment of other children	Significant differences (age, trauma history, diagnoses, bond) reduce probative value; cannot infer same risk to JK	Anticipatory-neglect doctrine insufficient here given marked differences between DF and JK
Admissibility/weight of 2008 records and caseworker testimony referencing them	Petitioner relied on statements from 2008 CPS report and earlier psych to show history of problems	Respondent argued those records/summary testimony were improper or insufficient; challenged reliance	Court of Appeals declined to decide admissibility issues because sufficiency failed on other grounds

In re Brock, 442 Mich 101 (preponderance required to establish juvenile-court jurisdiction)
In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286 (standard of review and anticipatory-neglect doctrine discussion)
In re Churchill/Belinski, 503 Mich 895 (vacating adjudication where no independent basis existed for some children)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745 (fundamental parental liberty interest requires adequate proof before state interference)
In re LaFrance minors, 306 Mich App 713 (limits on anticipatory neglect when children differ materially)
In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668 (anticipatory neglect does not require prior abuse of the second child)
In re AH, 245 Mich App 77 (how treatment of one child can be probative regarding treatment of another)
In re Newman, 189 Mich App 61 (parents may be less than ideal yet not meet statutory threshold for termination)