Child’s removal; Reasonable efforts to prevent removal; MCR 3.965(C)(4); Sufficient findings before ordering removal; MCR 3.965(C)(2) & (3); In re Williams; Plain error review

The court held that the referee did not clearly err in finding that DHHS made reasonable efforts to prevent respondent-mother’s child’s removal from her home. While the trial court erred in failing to make specific findings to support its finding under MCR 3.965(C)(2)(e), the court concluded that given “the specific facts of this case,” this error did not seriously affect the fairness of the proceedings. Thus, it affirmed the removal order. As to reasonable efforts, “respondent had a prior history of intervention. She was involved with DHHS in 2023 and completed services, but at the time of” the current case, she “still had the same issues with managing the child’s behavior.” She and the DHHS agreed to “verbal and written safety plans to keep the child safe, but respondent did not comply with them. Although [she] had a comparatively brief period to work with services before the child was removed, during that time respondent was reluctant to participate in services and the petition laid out specific incidents that occurred between June 2 and 12.” The court found that this evidence supported “the referee’s conclusion both that DHHS made reasonable efforts to teach respondent safe parenting and provide her resources and that respondent was not interested in the help.” As to the five findings a trial court must make before placing a child in foster care, the court concluded that the referee’s findings as to MCR 3.965(C)(2)(a)-(d) were sufficient and supported by the record. As to (e), it agreed with respondent that there were no specific findings in the record “to support the referee’s ultimate finding that placement away from the home would be adequate to safeguard the child’s welfare.” But based on testimony from the DHHS’s services specialist, the court was “not convinced that, had the referee made a specific finding under MCR 3.965(C)(2)(e), the outcome of” the proceedings would have been different. The court noted that “violation of a technical provision of a court rule is not necessarily a violation of constitutional magnitude.” The referee here “did find that the child’s placement away from the home was adequate to safeguard the child’s welfare; it simply did not provide explicit findings in support.”