Children’s removal; Probable cause; Suspension of parenting time

Concluding that the trial court did not err in removing the children from respondent-father’s care and suspending his parenting time, the court affirmed. He first argued “that there was a lack of evidence to justify the children’s removal.” After performing a preliminary investigation, the DHHS “petitioned the Family Division of the circuit court to take jurisdiction over respondent.” The court found that as “required by caselaw, this petition had ‘[t]he essential facts that, if proven, would allow the trial court to assume jurisdiction over the child.’” The trial court was prepared to hold a preliminary hearing, but respondent explicitly waived it, along with the probable cause determination. Further, respondent alleged “a lack of evidence to satisfy MCL 712A.13a(9), which governs the placement of a child into foster care. In this case, the children were not placed into foster care but were instead released to the” nonrespondent-mother. Thus, MCL 712A.13a(9) was not applicable. The court noted that following a preliminary examination, which was waived in this case, “[t]he court may authorize the filing of the petition upon a showing of probable cause, unless waived, that one or more of the allegations in the petition are true and fall within MCL 712A.2(b).” Respondent alleged “the trial court erred in holding that there were sufficient findings to have probable cause to remove the children from respondent’s care. However, the petition set forth numerous allegations of repeated physical and sexual abuse by respondent against both children, including [his] penetration of [one of the children] multiple times. The children disclosed the abuse on several occasions to counselors, healthcare providers, CPS investigators, and their mother. At the preliminary hearing, the referee acknowledged the serious allegations and found that it was contrary to the children’s welfare for them to remain under respondent’s care and that no other arrangement was available except to remove the children from respondent’s care. The trial court did not err when it found that it was contrary to [their] welfare to remain in respondent’s care.”