In Re Om Minor

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED June 11, 2025 11:58 AM In re OM, Minor. No. 373430 Genesee Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 22-138053-NA Before: YATES, P.J., and YOUNG and WALLACE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent-father appeals as of right the trial court’s order assuming jurisdiction over the minor child, OM, under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the trial court’s order. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In March 2022, petitioner, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), filed a petition to remove OM and her siblings from their mother’s care based on reports of physical and emotional abuse, as well as their mother’s declining mental health.1 The trial court authorized DHHS’s petition and placed OM with respondent-father, her legal father.2 DHHS sought to make respondent-father a respondent in those proceedings because of his criminal record and history with CPS, but the trial court declined to do so. Respondent-father frequently expressed an unwillingness to care for OM and eventually placed her with his adult son. As OM’s mother progressed in her services, the trial court returned the children to her care. However, the court later removed the children again in January 2023 after OM and her sibling, ZM, disclosed that their mother’s boyfriend sexually abused them and that their mother was aware of the abuse. OM 1 The children’s mother is not a party to this appeal. 2 Respondent-father is not the father of any of OM’s siblings. -1- was again placed in respondent-father’s care with the requirement that their mother only have supervised contact with OM and that their mother’s boyfriend have no contact with OM. Several issues arose while OM was in respondent-father’s care. Respondent-father refused to bring OM to scheduled parenting-time visits with her mother, he refused to comply with subpoenas for OM to testify in her mother’s case, he refused to let OM participate in court-ordered therapy, and he refused to let DHHS caseworkers meet with OM. Respondent-father’s compliance with the court’s orders improved slightly after the court chastised respondent-father for his noncompliance, but this improvement was only temporary. Respondent-father again refused to let OM testify in her mother’s trial, he refused to let DHHS or OM’s court-appointed special advocate (CASA) meet with her, and he continued to keep OM out of therapy. DHHS again sought to make respondent-father a respondent in the child protective proceedings after it learned that respondent- father allowed OM’s mother and her boyfriend to have unsupervised visits with OM. Respondent- father also told OM’s CASA that he wanted OM returned to her mother’s care. The court authorized DHHS’s petition and allowed for in-home jurisdiction while reiterating to respondent- father the court’s orders. The trial court removed OM from respondent-father’s care in June 2024 after OM’s caseworker and CASA reported concerns about OM’s well-being in respondent-father’s care. Respondent-father limited OM’s access to people outside his home, OM’s hair was matted and had mold in it, there were concerns about OM’s nutrition, and there were concerns about respondent-father’s temper with OM. Respondent-father still refused to let OM attend therapy, he refused to address OM’s educational needs, and he frequently stated that he would return OM to her mother even if the court terminated her parental rights to OM. At respondent-father’s adjudication trial, the court heard testimony from OM’s caseworker and CASA about respondent-father’s noncompliance with the court’s orders, respondent-father’s refusal to address OM’s mental-health and educational needs, and OM’s demeanor around respondent-father after removal. Moreover, the court heard testimony that OM had “flourished” since her removal from respondent-father’s care, including that she was engaged in therapy and doing very well academically. While respondent-father testified that he provided for all of OM’s needs, OM’s fictive kin3 placement testified about OM’s concerning weight, appearance, demeanor, academic performance, an