Order After Removal Hearing (Child Protective Proceedings) {JC 75} | Pdf Fpdf Docx | Michigan

 Michigan /  Statewide /  Juvenile /
Order After Removal Hearing (Child Protective Proceedings) {JC 75} | Pdf Fpdf Docx | Michigan

Order After Removal Hearing (Child Protective Proceedings) {JC 75}

This is a Michigan form that can be used for Juvenile within Statewide.

Alternate TextLast updated: 3/8/2019

Included Formats to Download
$ 17.99

Description

Approved, SCAO þ PCS CODE: RMH/OFETCS CODE: ERH/OFERSTATE OF MICHIGANJUDICIAL CIRCUIT - FAMILY DIVISIONCOUNTY ORDER AFTER REMOVAL HEARING(CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS)ORDER en-US OF en-US en-USCASE NO.en-USPETITION NO.en-USCourt addressen-USCourt telephone no. 1. þ In the matter of þ en-USname(s), alias(es), DOB 2. þ Date of hearing: en-US þ Judge/Referee: en-USBar no.en-USTHE COURT FINDS: 3. þ þ a. þ This emergency removal hearing is held þ preadjudication þ postadjudication þ under MCR 3.974(C). þ þ Protective custody of the child(ren) was already ordered on en-US en-US en-US(form JC 05b or other)en-US. þ Taking the child(ren) into protective custody was necessary to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the child(ren), and þ it þ is þ is not þ necessary that removal continue pending the next hearing en-US(see item 18)en-US. þ þ Contrary to the welfare findings were made in the order authorizing the emergency removal en-US(form JC 05b or other)en-US. þ þ Each parent, guardian, or legal custodian from whom the child(ren) was/were removed has received a written þ þ statement of the reasons for the emergency removal and has been advised of his/her rights in accordance with þ MCR 3.974(C)(3). þ þ þ b. þ This removal hearing is held þ preadjudication þ postadjudication þ under MCR 3.974(B). The child(ren) þ has not/have not been removed prior to this hearing and an order to take the child(ren) into protective custody þ þ is not necessary. þ þ is necessary. Under MCL 712A.2(b) and MCR 3.965(C) there is reasonable cause to believe: þ 1) þ the child(ren) is/are at substantial risk of harm or is/are in surroundings that present an imminent risk of harm and þ the child(ren)222s immediate removal from those surroundings is necessary to protect the child(ren)222s health and þ þ safety, þ 2) þ the circumstances warrant issuing this order, þ 3) þ consistent with the circumstances, reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of þ the child(ren) as stated in item 7, þ 4) þ no remedy other than protective custody is reasonably available to protect the child(ren), and þ 5) þ continuing to reside in the home is contrary to the child(ren)222s welfare because: en-US(Attach separate sheets as necessary.) 4. þ The parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian were present and/or attempts were made to secure the presence of each parent, þ guardian, or legal custodian. 5. þ The lawyer-guardian ad litem for the child(ren) was present. þ 6. þ The child(ren) is/are Indian as defined in MCR 3.002(12). The petitioner þ þ has þ þ has not þ given notice of this þ removal hearing as required by MCR 3.920(C)(1). þ en-US The hearing must be adjourned pending conclusion of a removal hearing required by MCR 3.967. þ en-US The removal hearing required by MCR 3.967 was conducted in conjunction with this hearing en-US(see required findings in item 10). þ A qualified expert, en-USNameen-US , testified as required by law. American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order After Removal Hearing (Child Protective Proceedings) þ (12/18) þ Page of Order of Case No. Petition No. þ 7. þ þ a. þ Consistent with the circumstances, reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate removal of the child(ren) from the þ þ home were made as determined in the order authorizing the emergency removal en-US(form JC 05b or other)en-US. en-USOR þ þ b. þ Consistent with the circumstances, reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate removal of the child(ren) þ þ from the home. Those efforts include: (Specify below.) þ en-USOR þ þ þ c. þ The child(ren) is/are Indian, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence and the testimony of a qualified þ þ expert witness who has knowledge about the child-rearing practices of the Indian child222s tribe, that active efforts þ þ have þ have not þ been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent þ þ the breakup of the Indian family. These efforts have proved þ unsuccessful, þ successful, þ the continued þ þ custody of the child(ren) by the parent or Indian custodian þ is þ is not þ likely to result in serious emotional or þ physical damage to the child(ren), and the child(ren) þ should þ should not þ be removed from the home. þ þ en-US(Specify below.) þ The efforts for 7.b. or 7.c. are: (Specify the efforts from 7.b. or 7.c. here. If the child is an Indian child, specify active efforts as defined by þ þ MCR þ 3.002[1] and MCL 712B.3[a].) þ þ d. þ Reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate removal of the child(ren) from the home were not made. þ 8. þ a. þ Reasonable efforts are not required to prevent or eliminate the child(ren)222s removal from the home due to the þ þ mother þ father þ subjecting the child(ren) to the aggravated circumstance(s) of þ en-US en-US as provided in section MCL 722.638(1) and (2), and as evidenced þ by þ en-US þ en-US þ en-US en-US . þ þ mother222s þ father222s þ conviction for murder of another child of the parent. þ þ mother222s þ father222s þ conviction for voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent. þ þ mother222s þ father222s þ conviction for aiding or abetting in the murder or manslaughter of another þ þ child of the parent, attempting to murder the child(ren) or another child of the parent, or conspiring or soliciting to þ þ commit the murder of the child(ren) or another child of the parent. þ þ mother222s þ father222s þ conviction for felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to the þ þ child(ren) or another child of the parent. þ þ mother222s þ father222s þ involuntary termination of parental rights to a sibling of the child(ren) and þ failure by that parent to rectify the conditions that led to that termination. þ þ mother þ father þ being required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act. þ þ b. þ Reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family to make it possible for the child(ren) to safely return home are þ þ not required because the parent subjected the child or another child of the parent to one of the circumstances þ þ stated above. þ þ en-USOR þ þ still recommended because: þ þ (When item 8 is checked, either complete item 10 below or schedule a permanency planning hearing within 28 days of this determination.) þ American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order After Removal Hearing (Child Protective Proceedings) þ (12/18) þ Page of Order of Case No. Petition No. þ 9. þ þ a. þ Reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify the family to make it possible for the child(ren) to safely þ return home. þ þ b. þ Reasonable efforts shall not be made to preserve and reunify the family because it would be detrimental to the þ child(ren)222s health and safety. þ þ 10. þ Because reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate removal or to reunite the child(ren) and family are not required, þ a permanency planning hearing was conducted. en-US(en-USUse and attach form JC 19 , Order Following Dispositional Review/Permanency þ þ en-USPlanning Hearing.) þ 11. þ Custody of the child(ren) with the parent/guardian/legal custodian þ þ a. þ presents a substantial risk of harm to the child(ren)222s life, physical health, or mental well-being. þ þ No provision of service or other arrangement except removal of the child(ren) is reasonably available to adequately þ safeguard the child(ren) from the risk of harm to the child(ren)222s life, physical health, or mental well-being. þ þ þ Conditions of custody at the placement away from the home and with the individual with whom the child(ren) is/are þ placed are adequate to safeguard the child(ren)222s health and welfare. þ þ þ b. þ does not present a substantial risk of harm to the child(ren)222s life, physical health, or mental well-being. þ 12. þ þ a. þ All siblings are in joint placement. þ þ b. þ All siblings are not in joint placement because: þ Sibling contact þ is occurring according to law. þ en-US is not occurring because en-US(see item 16 to order sibling contact)en-US: þ 13. þ Parenting time with en-US en-US , even if supervised, may be harmful to the child(ren). þ en-USIT IS ORDERED: þ 14. þ The child(ren) þ þ þ a. þ is/are placed with the department for care a

Our Products