Juvenile adjudication; Detention in a facility; Failure to use a detention screening tool; MCL 712A.15(3); MCR 3.907(D); Plain error review; Whether respondent’s substantial rights were affected; Compliance with the requirements of MCL 712A.18(1) & MCR 3.943(E)(2) (applicable to orders of disposition); Setting a bond; Harmless error

The court held that respondent-juvenile failed to show that his substantial rights were affected by the trial court’s plain error in not using a detention screening tool before placing him into a detention facility. His claims that it also erred in not complying with MCL 712A.18(1) and MCR 3.943(E)(2) failed because those provisions address orders of disposition, and an order of adjudication was at issue here. Finally, if the trial court erred in “setting a bond, the error was harmless.” Thus, the court affirmed the order of adjudication placing him in a detention facility. It was clear that “MCL 712A.15(3) and MCR 3.907(D) required the trial court to use a detention screening tool on respondent before [it] was permitted to order [him] detained. The statute repeatedly uses the word ‘shall,’ and the court rule repeatedly uses the word ‘must[.]’” Yet nothing in the record indicated the trial court “used a detention screening tool before ordering respondent into a detention facility.” But the question of whether this plain error affected his substantial rights was “difficult because neither party on appeal explains what the detention screening tool is or what it consists of.” In the absence of “any information about the” tool, the court could not say whether the trial court’s failure to use it prejudiced respondent. Thus, he could not prevail because he had “the burden of establishing that a plain error affected his substantial rights.” However, the court was able to address his claim “that the trial court could not ‘make [an] informed placement decision[]’ without using a detention screening tool.” It found that “the trial court’s lengthy explanation for its decision” reflected that it “carefully considered its options and did not order respondent into a detention facility lightly. [It] explained that it viewed detention as the final option after all other avenues were exhausted, and it opined that” they had been exhausted. The record supported that conclusion. The trial court detailed “how respondent repeatedly tested positive for marijuana in violation of his probation, and how” it repeatedly overlooked his positive tests and gave “him chances to stop using.” In addition, he “was involved in criminal cases in a different county.”