Child removal; MCL 712A.2(b)(1); Reasonable efforts pursuant to MCR 3.965(C)(4)

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in authorizing the petition to remove respondent-mother’s child (MB) from her care, the court affirmed the order. The trial court concluded that the petition’s allegations fell within MCL 712A.2(b)(1). It “authorized the petition because respondent left MB in the care of his alleged abuser, contrary to court order, which presented a substantial risk to the child’s life, physical health, or mental well-being.” While respondent contended “that she never saw the order requiring” the abuser (S) to be removed from the home, she cited “no case, court rule, or statute that indicates that she was required to have a physical copy of the” order before being required to comply with it. Further, the record indicated that she “had actual notice of the order the day it was signed, as she was explicitly informed of the order by two different people—two days before she was seen violating” it. In addition, she did “not contest the petition allegation that she ‘violated the safety plan’” as to S being limited to only “‘supervised visitation as he has been observed picking [MB] up from daycare alone on multiple occasions.’” Respondent also asserted that the trial court did not “make any specific findings of fact that she committed any misconduct.” However, her “refusal to both comply with the order to remove [S] from her home and with CPS’s safety plan regarding [S] not being alone with MB, is misconduct that she committed.” As to her reasonable efforts argument, “pursuant to MCR 3.965(C)(4), although there was no obligation to make any determinations regarding reasonable efforts because MB was released to his father, the record indicates that the trial court did make specific determinations” that reasonable efforts were made.