When a child’s mental health needs escalate, parents may face choosing between household safety and neglect allegations. Michigan courts are often asked to decide where that line is drawn—particularly when a parent has exhausted treatment options but still cannot safely bring a child home. The case discussed below addresses this exact dilemma and clarifies how Michigan law treats parents who are genuinely unable, rather than unwilling, to provide care under extreme circumstances. The Michigan Supreme Court’s analysis guides parents, attorneys, and agencies on jurisdiction, neglect, and parental responsibility under the Juvenile Code.

In this case, the minor child had been diagnosed with mental health illnesses and had been receiving treatment for years with little to no improvement. His mother pursued multiple treatments, including hospitalizations and a year-long out-of-state program that discharged him early. DVL had threatened to harm himself, his mother, his siblings, and the family pet. After an incident where DVL threatened to set the home on fire, his mother had him hospitalized shortly before the filing of this action. After less than a month, the hospital wanted to discharge DVL back to his home, and he was to receive intense outpatient treatment. A method that had previously failed. 

His mother refused to pick him up from the hospital out of fear for the safety of the members of her household. For this reason, DHHS filed a petition to take jurisdiction of DVL pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). The trial court found that DVL’s mother had not been neglectful of DVL and would not take jurisdiction. DHHS appealed that decision because the trial court erred in that judgment. While the appellate court agreed with DHHS, the Michigan Supreme Court found that the trial court did not err and agreed that the mother was not negligent under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2) and remanded the case back to the trial court for the original order to be reinstated. 

What are MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2), and What Did the Court Say?

MCL 712A.2(b)(1) allows a court to take jurisdiction over a minor whose parent neglects or refuses to provide proper support to the minor when they can do so. The Court stated that the issue is not whether a parent failed to provide support but whether they were able, meaning they had sufficient power, skill, or resources to do so. The Court concluded that DVL’s mother was not able, as DVL posed a danger to himself and others. The outpatient services offered had previously failed in the past and were unlikely to succeed now. The Court found that the trial court did not err in its findings as to MCL 712A.2(b)(1).

MCL 712A.2(b)(2) allows a court to take jurisdiction over a minor whose home is an unfit place for them to live because of the neglect of a parent. The Court defined neglect as failing to exercise the care a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances. The mother refusing to pick up DVL from the hospital and bring him home, where he posed a danger, was what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances. The Court concluded that the trial court did not err in its findings as to MCL 712A.2(b)(2).

Why Should This Matter to Michigan Parents?

This distinction gives parents a defense against neglect claims when a child’s behavior makes safe care impossible. This is after the parent has exhausted all available options to get the child treatment. If, after you have exhausted all other options to get your child help, they still pose a danger to themselves or others, you should not be charged by DHHS as a neglectful parent and risk losing your other children. 

An option that parents may have in situations similar to this is the charge of Incorrigibility. Incorrigibility is a noncriminal status offense for children who repeatedly disobey reasonable, lawful parental or guardian commands. The disobedience must be widespread, meaning that it is more than just repeatedly ignoring a rule. For example, repeated violent threats against others, repeatedly breaking curfew, repeatedly refusing to attend school, etc. In juvenile court, the judge must find by clear and convincing evidence that court-ordered services are necessary.

Consult with an Attorney

If you need help navigating a CPS or incorrigibility case in Michigan, the family law team at The Kronzek Firm is here to help. One of our experienced attorneys can evaluate your specific circumstances and assist you by

• Explaining your rights and responsibilities
• Communicating with CPS on your behalf
• Challenging false allegations
• Navigating court proceedings

📞 Our attorneys have helped thousands of Michigan clients for more than 30 years. You can reach all of our offices 24/7 by calling 1-800-KRONZEK.

[Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult an attorney for personalized guidance.]