Michigan > Statewide > Juvenile
Order Following Dispositional Review Or Permanency Planning Hearing (Child Protective Proceedings) JC 19 - Michigan
| Order Following Dispositional Review Or Permanency Planning Hearing (Child Protective Proceedings) Form. This is a Michigan form and can be used in Juvenile Statewide . |
|
||||||
 Get this form for FREE as a print-only pdf |
|||||||
|
Approved, SCAO JIS CODE: SRE, PRN STATE OF MICHIGAN JUDICIAL CIRCUIT - FAMILY DIVISION ORDER FOLLOWING DISPOSITIONAL REVIEW/ CASE NO. PETITION NO. PERMANENCY PLANNING HEARING COUNTY (CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS), PAGE 1 ORDER _____ OF _____ Court telephone no. Court address 1. In the matter of name(s), alias(es), DOB 2. Date of hearing: 3. Removal date: Judge/Referee: Bar no. (Specify for each child if different.) Last permanency planning hearing date: (Specify for each child if different.) 4. As of the last order, the child(ren) named above was/were in the protective/temporary custody of the court, and remained in the home. was/were placed with the Department of Human Services for care and supervision. 5. Notice of hearing for the review permanency planning combined review and permanency planning hearing was served as required by law. Notice of proceedings is to be given as required by law. 6. This review hearing involves an Indian child in which removal has been requested or in which the child was removed from the home pursuant to an emergency removal hearing conducted in accordance with MCR 3.974(C). The removal hearing was conducted in conjunction with the emergency removal hearing. is scheduled for . THE COURT FINDS: 7. The lawyer-guardian ad litem has has not complied with the requirements of MCL 712A.17d. 8. a. There is probable cause to believe the legal/putative father(s) is/are: (Name each child, his/her father, and whether legal or putative.) b. The putative father of is unknown and cannot be identified. c. The putative father was notified as required by law and failed to establish paternity within the time set by the court. The putative father waives all rights to further notice, including the right to notice of termination of parental rights and the right to an attorney. 9. The court has considered the case service plan and other evidence presented. The findings below are specific to this case and are based upon this hearing, and the following report(s): identify report(s) and date(s) of report(s) Specific conditions reviewed on the record as required by MCL 712A.19(6) were a. compliance with the case service plan with respect to services provided or offered to the child and his or her parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian and whether the parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian complied with and benefited from those services. b. compliance with the case service plan with respect to parenting time with the child and whether parenting time did not occur or was infrequent and the reasons why. c. the extent to which the parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian complied with each provision of the case service plan, prior court orders, and any agreement between the parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian and the agency. d. likely harm to the child if the child continued to be separated from his or her parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian. e. likely harm to the child if the child was returned to his or her parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian. 10. Returning the child(ren) to the parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian would would not cause a substantial risk of harm to the child(ren)'s life, physical health, or mental well-being. 11. The child(ren) should not be returned to the parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian. (State reasons for a. or b. in the space below.) a. The agency should should not initiate proceedings to terminate the parental rights to the child(ren) because: b. The child has been in foster care for 15 months of the most recent 22 months, and the agency should initiate proceedings to terminate the parental rights to the child(ren). should not initiate proceedings to terminate the parental rights to the child(ren) for the following compelling reasons: NOTE: If the child(ren) was/were not removed prior to the dispositional review or permanency planning hearing and new allegations are made which require removal, a supplemental petition must be prepared and filed and an emergency removal hearing held, whereupon contrary to the welfare and reasonable efforts findings must be made. Use form JC 75. See MCR 3.974(B) and (C). (SEE SECOND PAGE) USE NOTE: Do not use this form for review or permanency planning hearings after termination. Use form JC 76 instead. JC 19 (9/11) Do not write below this line - For court use only MCL 712A.17d(1)(c), MCL 712A.18f, MCL 712A.19, ORDER FOLLOWING DISPOSITIONAL REVIEW/PERMANENCY PLANNING HEARING MCL 712A.19a, MCL 712A.20, MCR 3.921(C), MCR 3.974(A)(3), MCR 3.975, MCR 3.976(B)(1), MCR 3.979 (CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS), PAGE 1 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Approved, SCAO JIS CODE: SRE, PRN STATE OF MICHIGAN JUDICIAL CIRCUIT - FAMILY DIVISION ORDER FOLLOWING DISPOSITIONAL REVIEW/ CASE NO. PETITION NO. PERMANENCY PLANNING HEARING COUNTY (CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS), PAGE 2 ORDER _____ OF _____ Court telephone no. Court address In the matter of 12. a. Reasonable efforts were were not made to preserve and reunify the family to make it possible for the child(ren) to safely return to the child(ren)'s home. (Specify reasonable efforts below, and if applicable, the reasons for return.) 1) Reasonable efforts for reunification should be continued. 2) Those reasonable efforts were successful and the child(ren) should be released to . Name(s) of parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian (Specify.) The reasonable efforts include: b. Reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family to make it possible for the child(ren) to safely return to the child(ren)'s home are not required based on a prior order. 13. Progress toward alleviating or mitigating the conditions that caused the child(ren) to be placed or to remain in temporary foster care was was not made in accordance with MCL 712A.19(7). 14. The child(ren)'s continued placement is necessary and appropriate and is meeting the child(ren)'s needs. is no longer necessary or appropriate. 15. The child(ren) is/are Indian as defined in MCR 3.002(5), and placement remains does not remain appropriate and does does not comply with MCR 3.967(F). 16. *Reasonable efforts have have not been made to finalize the court-approved permanency plan of a. return to the parent for the child(ren) named b. adoption for the child(ren) named c. legal guardianship for the child(ren) named d. placement with a fit and willing relative for the child(ren) named e. i. placement in another planned permanent living arrangement (APPLA) for the child(ren) named . . . . ii. placement in another pla
|
|||||||
