Ex parte removal order; MCR 3.963(B)(1) & (4); Absence of a petition or affidavit of facts; Harmless error; In re Miller; Sufficiency of the factual findings in the order; MCL 712A.14(1)

The court held that while the trial court erred in issuing the ex parte removal order without a petition or an affidavit, the error was harmless as “the result was consistent with substantial justice, and it did not affect the” outcome of the case. Further, the factual findings in the order “satisfied MCR 3.963(B)(1) and MCL 712A.14(1).” Respondent-mother appealed the order, which removed her three children from her care. She first asserted that the trial court erred in issuing the ex parte order without receiving a petition or affidavit of facts. The court agreed an error occurred. “MCR 3.963(B)(4) requires that a ‘petition or affidavit of facts’ be submitted before an ex parte order can be issued.” Respondent brought two of the children to the hospital on 10/23/25 with severe burns. Authorities learned about their circumstances the next day. “Neither an affidavit nor a formal petition was submitted before the” trial court issued the order. Although the “DHHS did not submit it in affidavit form, on the basis of the record, the trial court was provided with the information it relied on to enter the ex parte order, as contemplated by the court rule. At the initial preliminary hearing, [it] heard from respondent and her counsel. [It] ultimately adjourned the preliminary hearing for good cause shown and, later that day, DHHS signed and submitted a petition, which was docketed the next business day [10/27/25], before the preliminary hearing resumed. And two days later respondent waived her right to a probable cause determination, the trial court heard testimony, and it then issued an order authorizing the filing of the petition and placing the children with DHHS pending a later hearing.” If the trial court had not issued the ex parte order on 10/24, and instead required a petition or affidavit, it was unclear “what would have happened, though it is possible the children would have been ordered removed three days later[.]” But the ultimate result “would have been the same.” As to the adequacy of the order, its “factual findings detailed the incident which led DHHS to seek the ex parte order: the injuries to the children, the services that had been provided to the family to prevent removal, and the fact that the children’s father was in jail at the time.” Affirmed.