Background
In August 2025, respondent-mother noticed that her minor son MB had injuries after returning from daycare. A hospital examination determined the injuries were “non-accidental.” Although respondent initially attributed the injuries to the daycare, Children’s Protective Services (CPS) investigated and ruled out the daycare, ultimately identifying respondent’s boyfriend, Ethan Sehy, as the likely cause. CPS worked with respondent to establish a safety plan under which Sehy would not be left alone with MB, but respondent failed to comply — Sehy was observed picking MB up from daycare unaccompanied on multiple occasions.
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) petitioned to have Sehy removed from respondent’s home. The trial court entered an ex parte order to that effect the same day. Two CPS workers called respondent, explained the order, and confirmed she understood it. Respondent stated she understood but would not comply. Two days later, CPS found Sehy at respondent’s home in violation of the order.
At a preliminary hearing the following day, the Van Buren Circuit Court Family Division authorized the petition to remove MB from respondent’s care, finding that respondent’s conduct placed MB at substantial risk to his life, physical health, or mental well-being. MB was released to his nonrespondent father. Respondent appealed as of right.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order authorizing the petition and removing MB from respondent’s care. The panel reviewed legal questions de novo and factual findings for clear error, deferring to the trial court’s credibility assessments. The court rejected respondent’s argument that she could not be held responsible for violating the removal order because she never received a physical copy of it, finding that actual verbal notice from two CPS workers — given two days before she was found in violation — was sufficient. Respondent had not only confirmed her understanding of the order but had expressly refused to comply with it.
The court also rejected respondent’s claim that the trial court failed to make specific findings of misconduct on her part, holding that her repeated refusal to follow both the CPS safety plan and the court’s removal order — while knowingly leaving MB in the care of his alleged abuser — constituted the requisite misconduct. Finally, the court dismissed respondent’s argument that the trial court failed to find DHHS engaged in reasonable efforts under MCR 3.965(C)(4), noting that no such finding was required because MB was released to his father rather than placed in foster care, and that the trial court had in any event made specific findings identifying the reasonable efforts undertaken.
Several of respondent’s other arguments were deemed abandoned for inadequate briefing — raised as bare assertions without supporting authority or evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Actual verbal notice of a court order is sufficient to require compliance; a physical copy of the order is not a prerequisite under Michigan law or court rules.
- A parent’s repeated refusal to follow both a CPS safety plan and a court order designed to protect a child from an alleged abuser constitutes misconduct supporting petition authorization under MCL 712A.2(b)(1).
- When a child is released to a nonrespondent parent rather than placed in foster or institutional care, a trial court is not obligated under MCR 3.965(C)(4) to make reasonable-efforts findings, though doing so does not constitute error.
- Appellate arguments consisting of bare assertions unsupported by case law, court rules, or evidence will be deemed abandoned and will not be addressed on the merits.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Michigan courts will not permit a parent’s technical objection — such as the absence of a written copy of a court order — to shield conduct that exposes a child to a known risk of harm. Where CPS has identified a likely abuser and a parent is explicitly informed of protective measures yet openly refuses to comply, that defiance itself satisfies the statutory threshold for removal. The ruling underscores that the parens patriae interest in child safety takes precedence over a parent’s claimed procedural grievances.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder that CPS safety plans, while not court orders, carry real weight in subsequent removal proceedings: respondent’s pre-order violations of the safety plan were treated as independent evidence of her unwillingness to protect her child, bolstering the case for removal even apart from the order violation. Attorneys representing parents in child protective proceedings should counsel clients that verbal notice of a court order triggers immediate compliance obligations.