In Re M M Gee Minor

── In Re M M Gee Minor ── Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General 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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED May 20, 2026 10:25 AM In re M. M. GEE, Minor. No. 377142 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 2013-514599-NA Before: TREBILCOCK, P.J., and CAMERON and LIEVENSE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent appeals by right the trial court’s order assuming jurisdiction over his child, MMG, under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arose as a result of ongoing domestic violence between respondent and MMG’s mother.1 Between February 2023 and April 2023, Children’s Protective Services (CPS) received three reports of domestic violence between respondent and mother, during which verbal and physical altercations took place in MMG’s presence. As a result, MMG was placed in a safety plan with her maternal grandmother. In May 2023, petitioner, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), filed an emergency petition to remove MMG from her parents’ care after they took MMG from her grandmother’s house and refused to disclose their whereabouts. The trial court authorized the emergency petition and placed MMG in the care of DHHS. DHHS later filed an amended petition, that the trial court also authorized, requesting temporary custody of MMG with respect to respondent, and termination of mother’s parental rights. During the proceedings, respondent, mother, and their caseworker testified regarding the alleged domestic violence. Although respondent denied that the altercations were physical, he and 1 MMG’s mother was named as a respondent in the lower court proceedings but is not a party to this appeal. Therefore, for simplicity, we refer to her only as “mother.” -1- mother both admitted that there had been physical violence between them, respondent had pending domestic violence charges against him, and mother had an active personal protection order (PPO) against respondent. Accordingly, DHHS requested that the trial court take jurisdiction over MMG. Respondent argued there was insufficient evidence to take jurisdiction over MMG because he provided adequate care, had suitable housing and income, and cooperated with caseworkers. Moreover, he claimed there was no evidence proving that he was convicted of domestic violence. The trial court found grounds to exercise jurisdiction over MMG as noted above. Respondent now appeals. II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW “Challenges to the court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction are reviewed for clear error in light of the court’s finding of fact.” In re Boshell/Shelton, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket No. 371973); slip op at 3 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, giving due regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to observe the witnesses.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). III. ANALYSIS Respondent argues that there was insufficient evidence for the trial court to assume jurisdiction over MMG. We disagree. To properly exercise jurisdiction over children involved in child p