Background
Children’s Protective Services investigated allegations concerning RB, respondent’s approximately one-month-old son. Respondent admitted that she had forcefully shaken the child, had expressed thoughts of killing him, and sometimes left him with his putative father despite knowing that he was addicted to methamphetamine. Investigators also learned that respondent and the child were living with a convicted sex trafficker and discovered messages suggesting that pornographic videos were being made in the child’s presence and that the child may have been exposed to sexual abuse.
After the child received a medical evaluation, respondent voluntarily entered inpatient psychiatric treatment. At a March 3, 2026 emergency hearing, the child was ready for discharge but had no suitable caregiver: respondent remained hospitalized, the putative father could not be located, and the maternal grandmother would not take the child. The trial court placed the child in the Department of Health and Human Services’ custody and suspended respondent’s parenting time. At a continued preliminary hearing on April 7, the court found probable cause to authorize the neglect petition and continued the parenting-time suspension pending a psychological evaluation. Respondent appealed both the removal and authorization orders.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Because respondent did not object to removal or authorization at or before the preliminary hearing, her challenges were unpreserved and subject to plain-error review. The court held that the record adequately supported the statutory removal findings, including that remaining with respondent posed a substantial risk of harm, no reasonably available arrangement short of removal could adequately protect the child, continued residence with respondent was contrary to the child’s welfare, and placement away from respondent could safeguard the child.
The court also held that probable cause—not a preponderance of the evidence—was the standard for authorizing the petition. Respondent’s treatment, medication, and therapy did not eliminate the unresolved concerns about whether she could safely care for the infant. Evidence from the earlier emergency hearing remained relevant because the child-protective action was a single continuous proceeding. The evidence supported probable cause that the child lacked proper custody or guardianship under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and that his environment was unfit because of physical abuse and respondent’s unresolved mental-health issues under MCL 712A.2(b)(2).
Key Takeaways
- A parent must object at or before the preliminary hearing to preserve challenges to emergency removal and authorization of a child-protective petition.
- Probable cause is the evidentiary threshold for authorizing a neglect petition; the higher preponderance standard applies at adjudication.
- A court need not wait for an infant to suffer an actual physical injury when threats, admitted physical abuse, and unsafe caregivers establish a substantial risk of harm.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between the preliminary authorization stage and the later adjudication of a child-protective case. At authorization, the court determines only whether probable cause supports allegations that would permit jurisdiction, and it may consider evidence introduced earlier in the same continuous proceeding.
It also underscores that a parent’s voluntary mental-health treatment does not by itself require immediate reunification or parenting time when serious safety concerns remain unresolved. Removal and suspended parenting time may remain temporary while psychological information is obtained and reasonable reunification efforts continue.