Child protective proceedings; Removal; MCR 3.965(C); MCL 712A.13a(9); Waiver; Contrary-to-the-welfare finding; Reasonable efforts; Anticipatory neglect; Special-needs children; Recanted allegations

The court held that respondent-father waived any challenge to one child’s (KC) removal and that the trial court did not err by removing the other two (SC and TC) from his care. DHHS petitioned for removal after KC reported that respondent locked him in his bedroom, forcing him to use a jug as a bathroom. The trial court ordered all three children removed after the preliminary hearing. On appeal, the court first found respondent waived any challenge as to KC because counsel stated there was no objection to KC’s removal, and respondent could not “harbor error as an appellate parachute.” As to SC and TC, the court concluded removal was supported by anticipatory neglect because respondent’s treatment of KC was probative of risk to his nonverbal daughters with special needs, who might not be able to seek help or describe their care. The court reasoned that respondent’s conduct created a substantial risk of harm and that remaining in the home was contrary to the children’s welfare. It also found reasonable efforts were made, including a team decision meeting, a safety plan, law-enforcement cooperation, a medical evaluation, interviews, and prior services. Finally, the court rejected respondent’s reliance on KC’s interruption of the Zoom hearing because the statement was unsworn and did not disprove the hearing testimony. Affirmed.