Adjudication; Whether there was a showing of probable cause that allegations related to respondent fell within MCL 712A.2(b); Plain error review; Placement of the children in foster care; MCR 3.965(C)(2); Whether respondent was adequately informed of her rights before she entered her plea; MCR 3.971(B); In re Pederson; Harmless error

The court held that the trial court did not err in considering the entirety of respondent-mother’s conduct before the petition was filed and properly considered the factors “in MCR 3.965(C)(2) when placing the children in foster care.” While it plainly erred in not advising her in accordance with MCR 3.971(B)(3), (4), and (6), the court held that this error was harmless here. She first contended “that the trial court erred in removing the children from her care and custody at the adjudication hearing.” The court found that her argument that the trial court erred in removing the children “because the petition did not allege conduct that was recent regarding her action, is misplaced because the plain language of the statute does not require that the allegations are contained to a specific time period before the petition is filed. Instead, MCL 712A.2(b) requires a showing that the children are subject to a substantial risk of harm, or [are] in a home or environment that is unfit, because of respondent.” Evidence was presented to the trial court “that the children were attending school dirty and that, seven months before the petition, respondent was living in her car with” them. In addition, she admitted “she was living in a home that was unfit for the children to live.” Thus, the petition contained allegations that she “had and still was neglecting the children[.]” As to their placement into foster care, the court found no plain or obvious error in the trial court’s finding “that removal of the children was proper because of respondent’s ‘refusal to cooperate with services’ . . . .” Finally, although the trial court plainly erred in not advising her of all “her rights under MCR 3.971(B) before she entered her plea,” she did not show how this failure “at the adjudicative stage prejudiced her when the evidence at the termination hearing primarily concerned events that occurred after” her plea. The court noted “the trial court was presented with evidence throughout the proceedings that respondent had not maintained employment or obtained Social Security Insurance or disability during the pendency of the case, and she had tested positive for meth[] and amphetamine use shortly before the termination hearing. [It] terminated [her] parental rights because of those facts, among others.” Affirmed.