In Re Williams Minors, 371825

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (petitioner) filed a petition to remove minor children from the Williams family following the death of one child with complex medical needs and positive drug screens for another.
The petition alleged neglect and an unfit home under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2), pointing to the circumstances of the deceased child and the condition of the home.
At the contested hearing, evidence focused on the deceased child's medical issues, his death due to trach tube displacement, and some clutter and drug-related items in the home.
Prior CPS investigations were presented, but prior cases had been closed after compliance by the respondents and all children being healthy.
No specific evidence was introduced regarding the current health or care of the other minor children at issue.
The trial court denied the petition, finding insufficient evidence to establish jurisdiction over the surviving children; the petitioner appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should exercise jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) for neglect	Evidence of neglect for deceased child and drug exposure for another supports jurisdiction	Evidence pertains only to the deceased child, with no proof of neglect for others	Court ruled against jurisdiction: evidence insufficient as to surviving children
Whether anticipatory neglect doctrine applies to permit jurisdiction over all children	Treatment of one child is probative of risk to others; prior CPS investigations show risk	Decedent's special medical needs are not shared by others; no evidence of risk to them	Doctrine not applicable here due to dissimilarities among children
Whether the home environment justifies jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(2)	Home was cluttered, unkempt, and had drugs present, making it unfit	Messiness and suspected trash do not equate to an unfit home; no expert testimony	No preponderance of evidence home was unfit; clutter alone is insufficient
Whether prior CPS substantiations support current jurisdiction	Past substantiations and removals show ongoing issues justifying intervention	All prior cases closed after corrections; children currently healthy	Prior history did not outweigh lack of current evidence of neglect

In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (Standard for reviewing trial court's exercise of jurisdiction in child protective proceedings)
In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (Distinguishing between adjudicative and dispositional phases in child protection)
In re AH, 245 Mich App 77 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (Doctrine of anticipatory neglect)
In re Long, 326 Mich App 455 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018) (Cluttered home not sufficient for jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(2))
In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (Application of the anticipatory neglect doctrine)
In re MU, 264 Mich App 270 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (Proof of jurisdiction must relate to present circumstances)