in Re W Herzig Minor, 330918

Child born in early 2015; petition filed when child ~1 month old alleging respondent mother had history of CPS involvement including prior terminations of parental rights to two older children, recent incarceration, substance abuse, and mental-health problems.
Respondent admitted many allegations, including untreated/severe mental-health diagnoses, prior termination for neglect, lack of employment/income, living with persons involved in criminality/substance abuse, and inconsistent medication/drug-screen history.
CPS removed the child from respondent’s home after an investigation; respondent did not object to the removal order below.
At termination hearings, evidence showed respondent missed drug screens, failed to follow psychological recommendations, provided weak proof of counseling, and demonstrated parenting deficits during visits.
Trial court found statutory grounds for termination (MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) — reasonable likelihood of harm if returned) proved by clear and convincing evidence and concluded termination was in the child’s best interests; father’s rights also terminated (not part of this appeal).

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument	Held
Jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)	Prior and current conduct (anticipatory neglect, untreated mental illness, incarceration, unstable housing/associates) support jurisdiction.	Jurisdiction improper because much of the conduct predated the child’s birth.	Court: Jurisdiction proper; anticipatory neglect and respondent’s admissions supported assumption of jurisdiction.
Emergency removal under MCL 712A.14b	Removal was justified by new information (breastfeeding/medication conflict) and ongoing investigation; timing reasonable.	Removal was not an emergency because CPS waited ~3 weeks to remove child.	Court: No plain error; removal was reasonable and permissible.
Grounds for termination (MCL 712A.19b(3)(j))	Prior termination, ongoing untreated mental-health issues, inconsistent drug/medication compliance, failure to follow services, and parenting deficits show reasonable likelihood of harm.	Argued insufficient proof and some evidence (negative screens) showed no substance use.	Court: Clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 19b(3)(j).
Best interests of the child	Child thriving in foster care; respondent failed services and could not prioritize child; prolonged foster care undesirable.	Respondent argued removal early prevented bonding, so best-interests finding unreliable.	Court: No clear error; termination was in child’s best interests.

In re BZ & KZ, 264 Mich. App. 286 (2004) (trial court must find statutory basis before assuming jurisdiction)
In re Youmans, 156 Mich. App. 679 (1986) (admissions do not substitute for independent jurisdictional findings)
In re LaFrance Minors, 306 Mich. App. 713 (2014) (anticipatory neglect doctrine permits use of prior parental conduct)
In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich. 341 (2000) (standard of review and clear-and-convincing evidence for termination)
In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (only one statutory ground for termination needed)
In re Dearmon, 303 Mich. App. 684 (2014) (trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses given deference)
In re Utrera, 281 Mich. App. 1 (2008) (plain-error review for unpreserved removal objections)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (2013) (statutory discussion recognizing changes in precedent)