Child protective proceedings; Emergency removal; Procedural due process; In re Rood; Notice; MCR 3.920; MCR 3.963; MCR 3.965; MCR 3.974; Preliminary hearing; Protective custody

The court held that the trial court plainly erred by removing respondent-mother’s children from her care without following the procedural requirements governing preadjudication emergency removal. The DHHS filed an amended petition seeking removal after a new domestic-violence allegation, and the trial court held what it called an emergency removal hearing the same day, without respondent present. On appeal, the court first held that the proceeding did not qualify as a valid emergency removal hearing because “the trial court did not enter an order providing for taking the children into protective custody before holding the purported emergency removal hearing,” and the children were “still in respondent’s custody at the time of the hearing.” The court further reasoned that the “24-hour window in which to hold an emergency removal hearing was not triggered” until after the protective-custody order was entered. The court next held that the trial court lacked authority to order removal because “neither the original petition nor the amended petition had been authorized,” which was required before removal under MCR 3.974(C)(1). It also held that, if the hearing was instead an ordinary preliminary hearing, the trial court failed to provide the required notice because notice “must be given in writing or on the record at least 7 days before the hearing,” and that did not occur. Finally, the court held that the errors affected respondent’s substantial rights because the trial court’s later order relied on findings from the defective hearing, giving respondent no meaningful “opportunity to be heard.” The court emphasized that the trial court’s “blending of the emergency order for protective custody, the emergency removal hearing, and the preliminary hearing into a single, undifferentiated, and procedurally deficient hearing seriously affected the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Vacated and remanded.