Order for return; MCL 712A.19; Parent-agency treatment plan (PATP)

The court affirmed the trial court’s order returning child-ARD to the custody of respondent-mother. The case arose when the “mother was arrested for neglecting ARD.” The father argued “the trial court erred when it ordered ARD be returned to” the mother because: (1) she “was the reason ARD was removed; (2) ARD was placed with him and thrived; (3) ARD was not safe with [her]; and (4) [she] was in partial compliance with her PTAP.” The only authority he cited was “MCL 722.23, which provides the best-interest factors for a child during a custody dispute. That statute is not relevant in these child protective proceedings.” The court concluded “that the trial court did not err when it ordered ARD be reunited with respondent-mother. The purpose of a PATP is to facilitate the return of the child to the parent.” The court noted that “DHHS only filed a temporary custody petition, and the goal was always reunification.” Although the mother “initially struggled to comply with her PATP, she ultimately fully complied and remained in full compliance during the remainder of the dispositional review proceedings despite father’s interference. In fact, the trial court noted that respondent-mother effectively completed the PATP twice. DHHS and CPS concurred and stated that they had no concerns regarding ARD’s safety while with” her. Given her “successful completion of all tasks required for her reunification with ARD and the safety of her home, the trial court did not err by ordering that ARD be reunited with her.” The only difficulties encountered by the mother “were father’s lack of cooperation and outright interference with her opportunity to demonstrate her ability to successfully engage in parenting time with ARD.”