Background
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services took custody of respondent-mother’s two children in February 2024 after the younger child tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. The parents pleaded to the trial court’s jurisdiction. Although the mother initially had uneven compliance with her case service plan, she later made significant progress: she attended inpatient drug rehabilitation, transitioned to sober-living housing, found employment, participated in outpatient services, and secured a home. The children returned to the parents’ care in July 2025, but the court retained jurisdiction to continue services.
Concerns arose after the department learned that the home belonged to a man jailed on allegations of selling methamphetamine and that the mother had contacted him and missed drug screens. During an October 2025 home visit, the father tested positive for methamphetamine and other substances. The parents later failed to answer the door for another attempted visit, resisted the children’s removal, and stopped cooperating with caseworkers and the service plan. At the removal hearing, the mother testified about social-media posts attacking the judge and the department and stated that she did not intend to work with the department.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the order removing the children from the mother’s care. Applying MCR 3.965(C)(2), the court rejected her argument that the evidence failed to show that remaining in her custody presented a substantial risk of harm to the children’s life, physical health, or mental well-being.
The appellate court held that the trial court’s substantial-risk finding was not clearly erroneous. Although an October 15 home visit revealed no immediate danger, the record showed that the mother had effectively ceased participating in her case service plan: she repeatedly refused court-ordered drug tests, stopped communicating with caseworkers, prevented required home visits, and said she would no longer cooperate. The court also relied on concerns about the home’s connection to alleged methamphetamine distribution, needles found in the yard, confrontations with squatters—including an incident in which the mother kicked in a door in the children’s presence—and her increasingly irrational and combative behavior.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s failure to substantially comply with a case service plan may support a finding that returning a child to the parent presents a substantial risk of harm.
- The absence of an immediate hazard during a single home visit did not outweigh evidence of missed drug screens, blocked monitoring, noncooperation, and unsafe circumstances surrounding the home.
- A parent’s earlier progress toward reunification does not preclude removal when later conduct shows that participation in required services and safety oversight has effectively ceased.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Michigan courts may evaluate the full course of a parent’s conduct when determining whether removal is necessary under MCR 3.965(C)(2). Evidence that a parent has withdrawn from drug testing, home visits, caseworker communication, and other court-ordered services can establish substantial risk even without proof of an immediate injury to the children.
For practitioners, the opinion also underscores the importance of documenting changes in compliance after reunification. Prior progress remains relevant, but it will not necessarily overcome evidence that renewed noncompliance has prevented the department and the court from monitoring and safeguarding the children.