Petition to take jurisdiction; Notice of the preliminary hearing; MCR 2.004(F); Adjournment to secure a respondent’s presence; MCR 3.965(B)(1); Assignment of counsel for the hearing; MCR 3.915

Holding that any error by the trial court in proceeding without respondent-mother at the 1/18/22 preliminary hearing (which it adjourned) or in failing to appoint her counsel at that time was harmless, the court affirmed the order authorizing the petition as to her children. The January hearing was adjourned to secure respondent’s presence, although it was not adjourned immediately because the DHHS sought “an interim placement order pending resumption of the Preliminary Hearing” and presented a witness. The trial court “ordered that the children be removed and placed with the” DHHS, while emphasizing “the hearing was not ‘complete’” given that respondent was not present. The hearing resumed on 2/8/22. Respondent participated in this “hearing and was represented by an attorney. At the conclusion of the hearing, [she] waived probable cause and did not object to the petition being authorized. The trial court then found probable cause to believe that one or more of the allegations in the petition was true and authorized the petition. Thus, [it] did not make any relevant findings until the” February hearing at which she “was present and represented by counsel.” The court added that, to the extent she asserted “it was error for the trial court to remove the children and suspend her parenting time following the” January hearing, she did not contest the trial “court’s decision to do so following the February 8 hearing. It follows that even if the trial court erred by removing the children and suspending [her] parenting time following the January” hearing, the court could not grant her any appellate relief.