Preliminary removal probable cause; MCR 3.965(C)(3); In re Benavides; Due process opportunity to explain; MCR 3.965(B)(9); In re Ferranti; Reasonable efforts findings; MCR 3.965(C)(4); In re Barber/Espinoza

Holding that there was no due process violation, that probable cause supported removal, and that the trial court’s order as to reasonable efforts was sufficient, the court affirmed the “order finding probable cause to support the allegations in the petition for removal” as to respondent-mother’s six children. The petition alleged that on multiple dates respondent called police and told them “to contact CPS to come get her children” because she was “refusing to care for them,” left children at relatives’ homes without arranging care, and exhibited alarming behavior including banging her head in a cruiser and tying a sheet around her neck in the hospital. The referee recommended authorization of the petition and removal, and the trial court affirmed. On appeal, the court rejected respondent’s due process claim because she was allowed to deny the allegations and “make a statement of explanation,” and because the excluded testimony concerned matters not relevant to probable cause. On the children’s welfare/removal finding, the court quoted the trial judge that while there may have been disagreements with the father, “that is no justification to not care for these children and call the police[.]” The court held that the record supported that it was “contrary to the welfare of the children to remain with” respondent. As to reasonable efforts, the order properly incorporated prior findings that the DHHS “tried to make a safety plan,” provided a “community resource guide,” and offered mental health and counseling. And no findings as to reasonable efforts were required for the other three children who were placed with their father rather than in foster care.