Children’s removal from a parent’s care; Placing a child in foster care; MCL 712A.13a(9); In re Benavides; Hearsay; MCR 3.695(C)(3); Reasonable efforts to prevent removal

The court held that the trial court did not err in finding “it was contrary to the children’s welfare to remain in the home” and in removing them from respondent-mother’s care. The court stated that it was not holding it against the mother “that she was a victim of domestic violence, nor does it appear that the trial court solely made its contrary-to-the-welfare findings on that basis.” It concluded that it “was not improper for the trial court to consider the ongoing nature of the domestic violence, and that [the] mother had not been effective at preventing the abuse from impacting the children, including [one child] being assaulted during a recent incident.” It further found that “the trial court properly considered the ongoing issues with the home conditions, including descriptions that the house was ‘a hoarding situation’ and ‘fire hazard.’” While both respondents argued “there was no evidence that the same home conditions existed at the time of the preliminary hearing, [the] mother requested additional time to clean the home before the DHHS completed a home assessment, indicating that the conditions persisted. Respondent-father” asserted that the mother “‘initiated a diligent effort to alleviate the unsatisfactory conditions,’ but the DHHS had not been able to witness that.” In addition, he admitted on appeal that she “‘was injured by’ [him], resulting in her being in a wheelchair, which contributed to the housing conditions.” As to their claim “there was no longer a threat of domestic violence because [the] father no longer lived in the home, there was evidence that [he] had already committed domestic violence against [the] mother by entering the home uninvited. Accordingly, there is a reasonable likelihood that he could return to the home and engage in additional acts of violence against” her or the children. As to his assertion that the trial court relied on hearsay within hearsay, MCR 3.695(C)(3) provides that a “trial court may make its contrary-to-the-welfare findings ‘on the basis of hearsay evidence that possesses adequate indicia of trustworthiness.’” The court found that the trial court here “relied on reliable information. The petition and testimony at the hearing showed an extensive history between respondents and the DHHS.” The record also showed “the DHHS made reasonable efforts before removal[.]” Affirmed.