Evidentiary support for the removal order; Sufficiency of the trial court’s factual findings; In re Ferranti; Distinguishing In re Williams; Hearsay; MCL 712A.13a(9) & MCR 3.965(C)(2); Child Protective Services (CPS)

Concluding that the DHHS presented sufficient evidence to warrant the children’s removal and that the trial court made the requisite findings justifying its decision, the court affirmed the trial court’s order after a preliminary hearing authorizing the DHHS’s termination petition and removing respondent-father’s children from his care. He contended the DHHS “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial court failed to sufficiently articulate on the record, that (1) the children were at a substantial risk of harm, (2) the children’s immediate removal was necessary to protect their health and safety, and (3) the custody conditions away from respondent were adequate to safeguard the children’s health and welfare.” The court concluded that following Ferranti “and the underlying court rule governing preliminary hearings in child protective proceedings, the trial court did not err by applying the probable cause standard at the preliminary hearing here.” Next, to the extent respondent faulted “the trial court for relying on inadmissible hearsay testimony from” S, a CPS investigator, his argument was unavailing. Respondent’s claim that S “did not have personal knowledge of the events at issue,” was unpersuasive. “The trial court made sufficient findings on the record to satisfy its obligations under MCL 712A.13a(9) and MCR 3.965(C)(2).” The court held that the “trial court made specific factual findings on the record and recommended the children be removed from respondent.” It concluded that while “the trial court did not provide any particular reasoning to justify these findings, it still made explicit findings on each factor (a) through (e) as required under MCL 712A.13a(9) and MCR 3.965(C)(2) sufficient for this Court to conduct a meaningful review on appeal.” Lastly, the trial court’s findings as to “factors (a), (b), and (e) were all adequately supported by the record.” Respondent also argued that S “was unprepared and had limited knowledge of the allegations in the petition.” Nothing in the record left the court “with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made, especially since [S] provided details regarding the underlying [the DHHS] and law enforcement investigations concerning [one child's half-sibling’s] sexual abuse allegations. Respondent has failed to establish any error during the removal proceedings warranting reversal.”