Grounds for removal; Child protective removal & contrary-to-welfare finding (MCL 712A.13a(9)); Reasonable efforts to prevent removal; Adequacy of trial court findings; In re Williams; In re Benavides; Abandonment of arguments lacking authority; In re TK; Timing of adjudication hearing under MCR 3.972(A); Role of referee in adjudication under MCR 3.913 & MCR 3.912

The court held that the trial court did not err in ordering removal of respondent-father’s children or in denying their return based on timing of adjudication. The children came to CPS’s attention after he was seen walking with them late at night on a busy road. The investigation found he lacked stable housing, often dropped the children at his brother’s home without consent or legal authority, and failed to follow up on housing resources despite a team decision-making meeting. After he disappeared with the children for hours, CPS obtained an ex parte removal order. At the emergency hearing, the CPS worker testified that respondent “would not pick [the children] up and would not take accountability for them” and that he had not secured housing despite assistance. On appeal, the court agreed with the trial court’s finding that continued placement with respondent was “contrary to the children’s welfare” and that “reasonable efforts had been made” to prevent removal through safety planning and resources, satisfying MCL 712A.13a(9) and MCR 3.965(C). It also rejected respondent’s speculation that his status as legal father would have changed the outcome, holding such claims abandoned under TK. Finally, it rejected his challenge to the timing of adjudication, noting the trial was set within 63 days, initially before a referee as permitted by MCR 3.913, and later adjourned “for good cause shown” without objection. Because respondent showed no error affecting substantial rights, the trial court’s rulings stood. Affirmed.