Child’s removal from a parent’s care & custody; Finding that remaining in the home was contrary to the child’s welfare; MCR 3.965(B)(12); MCL 712A.13a(9); Reasonable efforts to prevent removal

The court concluded that the “trial court did not clearly err by finding that it was contrary to RR’s welfare to remain in the care and custody of respondent-mother and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent” the infant’s removal. The court noted that the “trial court’s contrary-to-the-welfare and reasonable-efforts findings were first made in the [7/31/24] ex parte order, then recited at the outset of the preliminary hearing on [8/19/24], and ultimately memorialized in the order entered after the preliminary hearing ended on [9/13/24]. In that order, as well as in the [7/31/24] ex parte order, the trial court found RR was at a substantial risk of imminent harm, that the circumstances warranted issuing the order, and that the reasons for” respondent’s other children “ROBJ and TMB being in care had not been adequately addressed by” respondent. The trial court also “found that reasonable efforts were made to prevent RR’s removal, citing his placement with his maternal aunt, who tried to abandon RR with CPS staff. Therefore, the trial court made all of the findings necessary to remove RR from [the] mother’s care and custody. Specifically, the trial court addressed all five requirements in MCL 712A.13a(9), and [it] also found that the DHHS had made reasonable efforts to prevent RR’s removal.” The court held that the “trial court’s reliance on prior findings, including reported sexual abuse by [the] mother and [her] failure to protect ROBJ and TMB from abuse, furnishes sufficient support for the trial court’s decision to remove RR. The trial court reasonably decided that it was contrary to the welfare of an infant, RR, to be placed with a parent with a history of sexual abuse of children.” Likewise, the trial court “had sufficient evidence to justify its reasonable-efforts finding. RR was placed in his maternal aunt’s home after the DHHS filed the petition, but RR’s aunt thereafter attempted to abandon RR with CPS staff, so the trial court did not clearly err by finding that the DHHS had put forth reasonable efforts to prevent removal of RR from respondent-mother’s care.” Affirmed.