COA 378111 IN RE IRLAND MINORS Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 6/16/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
UNPUBLISHED
June 16, 2026
2:33 PM
In re IRLAND, Minors.
No. 378111
Otsego Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 24-000273-NA
Before: CAMERON, P.J., and BOONSTRA and SWARTZLE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent1 appeals as of right the trial court’s order assuming jurisdiction over his minor
children. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2023, one of respondent’s children was brought to the hospital for “seizure
like activity,” and her urine tested positive for marijuana. Children’s Protective Services (CPS)
investigated the respondent-parents and determined that the marijuana did not belong to them. The
same child was hospitalized again in May 2024 after ingesting trazodone. CPS investigated again,
and again found that the trazodone did not belong to the respondent-parents. Then, in July 2024,
respondent’s other child, a newborn, was taken to the hospital when fears arose regarding whether
she was breathing. Following the hospitalization, CPS workers visited the home, finding it to be
extremely cluttered and filthy. They also saw ammunition and an e-cigarette, or “vape,” out in the
open within reach of the children, and there was a gun in an unlocked safe.
The petition alleged that remaining in the house was contrary to the children’s welfare
because of unsanitary living conditions, domestic violence, lack of proper supervision, and
respondent’s physical health. Respondent challenged these allegations, so the trial court held a
1 The children’s mother was also a respondent in the proceedings below but is not a party to this
appeal.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
jury trial. During the trial, various caseworkers involved with the family over time testified about
their involvement, including the marijuana and trazodone incidents that gave rise to investigations
and safety plans. The jury found that both children faced a substantial risk of harm, and the trial
court assumed jurisdiction. Respondent now appeals.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision regarding the admission of
evidence.” In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1, 15; 761 NW2d 253 (2008). “An abuse of discretion
occurs when the trial court chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of principled outcomes.”
Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “When an evidentiary question involves a question of
law, such as the interpretation of a statute or court rule, our review is de novo.” Id.
III. ANALYSIS
Respondent argues that the trial court erred by admitting inadmissible hearsay testimony
at trial. We disagree.
The rules of evidence for civil proceedings apply to evidentiary matters in parental-rights-
termination trials. MCR 3.972(C)(1). Under MRE 802, hearsay is inadmissible unless an
exception applies. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
MRE 801(c). “If, however, the proponent of the evidence offers the statement for a purpose other
than to prove the truth of the matter asserted, then the statement, by definition, is not hearsay.”
People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 350; 835 NW2d 319 (2013). One such permissible purpose is to
show the effect a statement had on a listener. People v Gaines, 306 Mich App 298, 306-307; 856
NW2d 222 (2014).
In this case, the testimony that referred to the marijuana and trazodone events were not
introduced to establish that respondent’s child had, in fact, ingested these substances. Instead, they
were introduced to provide a history of the family’s interactions with CPS since December 2023
that ultimately led to the filing of the petition in this case. Because these statements were not
introduced for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show the impact they had on the listener and
the listener’s subsequent actions, they were not hearsay and were therefore admissible.2
But even if the testimony had been inadmissible hearsay evidence, respondent is still not
entitled to relief because any error in admitting such evidence was harmless. See MCR 3.902(A);
2 We note that respondent’s brief on appeal argues that the jury took the testimony for the truth of
the matter asserted because one juror asked a question about “gummies.” But the jury was
instructed that it could only consider admissible evidence and was informed earlier that the
marijuana incident was not offered for its truth. Respondent provides no argument as to how this
single-word question from a juror demonstrates that the jury disregarded the trial court’s
instructions. See People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 235; 749 NW2d 272 (2008) (“jurors are
presumed to follow their instructions.”). Respondent has therefore abandoned this argument by
failing to sufficiently brief its merits. In re Rippy, 330 Mich App 350, 362 n 5; 948 NW2d 131
(2019).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
MCR 2.613. Caseworkers testified that, during the May 2024 home visit, they observed clutter
and dog feces on the floor, and noted the smell of urine. During the July 2024 home visit, they
observed that the home was in a worse condition, with a foul odor, more dog feces, old food, and
dirty dishes throughout the home. There was also testimony that there was an unsecured handgun,
ammunition, and a vape on a TV stand in the living room. Moreover, respondent admitted that, in
July 2024, he was unable to care for the children due to his medical condition. Thus, even if the
jury had not heard any testimony regarding marijuana or trazodone, we conclude that these
conditions would have led the jury to find that remaining in the home posed a substantial risk to
the children’s mental wellbeing under MCL 712A.2(b)(1).
Affirmed.
/s/ Thomas C. Cameron
/s/ Mark T. Boonstra
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

-- 3 of 3 --