Order of removal after the preliminary hearing; MCL 712A.13a(9); MCR 3.965(C)(2)-(4); In re McCarrick/Lamoreaux; MCR 3.965(B)(11); Applicability of MCL 712A.13a(10)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence respondent-father posed “a substantial risk of harm to the children” to support the trial court’s order removing them from his custody after the preliminary hearing. Further, the requirements of MCL 712A.13a(10) did not apply here, and there was no violation of the statute. He “engaged in ‘roughhousing’ with them over” a caseworker’s objection, they sustained suspicious bruising as a result, “and one child required hospital treatment for a visible handprint on his face.” The court concluded that MCL 712A.13a(9)’s requirements were satisfied. A foster care worker (P) testified that respondent slapped one of the children “causing the child’s nose to bleed and leaving a handprint-shaped bruise on his face. Respondent told [P] he was just roughhousing with the child. This was not the first time one of the children had injuries respondent claimed were from roughhousing.” He had a history of domestic violence against their “mother in their presence. He was referred to anger management, domestic violence, and parenting classes” but had not finished them. The trial court considered all five of MCL 712A.13a(9)’s requirements, and the court determined that its findings were not clearly erroneous. As to MCL 712A.13a(10), the court held that “a trial court’s failure to inform a respondent of the information required by this provision does not affect the validity of the trial court’s order.” It also concluded that the provision did not apply to the circumstances of this case. While it was found “that the children needed to be removed from respondent’s care, it was determined that the children did not need to be removed from their home where the safety plan with the paternal uncle was established. Rather, respondent agreed to leave the home to allow” them to stay to avoid a disruption to their environment. “Thus, the precipitating event, the placement of the juvenile outside the home, did not occur, and therefore, the trial court was not required to advise of the preparation of an initial services plan.” In addition, given that he “was already required to participate in services, there was no need to discuss with him an initial services plan, nor was there any need to apprise him of any conditions per MCL 712A.13a(10).” Affirmed.