in Re Benavides Minors, 964 NW2d 108

DHHS filed initial proceedings in Sept 2018 due to the mother’s substance abuse; children were placed with respondent (their father).
Respondent had a history of domestic violence against the mother in the children’s presence and was referred to parenting, domestic-violence, and anger-management classes but did not complete them.
In late Dec 2019 a supplemental petition alleged respondent slapped child ZMB, leaving a visible handprint-shaped bruise and a bloody nose; ZMB was treated at urgent care. Respondent characterized the conduct as “roughhousing.”
DHHS had previously warned respondent to stop roughhousing; children had prior unexplained bruises and missed schooling while with respondent.
A safety plan placed the children with their paternal uncle (they resided there); respondent agreed to move out to avoid disrupting the children’s placement. The referee/trial court authorized the supplemental petition and ordered removal from respondent’s custody.
The court concluded respondent posed a substantial risk of harm and that removal was necessary; the children were later returned to their mother after the preliminary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported removal under MCL 712A.13a(9) / MCR 3.965(C)(2)	DHHS: Slapping that produced a handprint bruise and bloody nose, prior suspicious bruises, domestic-violence history, and respondent’s failure to complete services show substantial risk and no adequate less-restrictive alternative.	Respondent: Safety plan with the paternal uncle and absence of further injury before the preliminary hearing made removal unnecessary.	Affirmed — court found sufficient evidence of substantial risk, requirements of MCL 712A.13a(9) met, and removal justified.
Whether the court erred by failing to advise respondent of MCL 712A.13a(10) rights about initial services plan	DHHS/Respondent (court’s position): The statute did not apply because children were not placed outside the home (they remained in uncle’s home) and respondent was already required to participate in services.	Respondent: Court failed to inform him that DHHS must prepare an initial services plan within 30 days, list its elements, and that participation is voluntary.	Affirmed — court held MCL 712A.13a(10) did not apply (placement outside home did not occur) and no reversal remedy warranted.

In re COH, ERH, JRG, & KBH, 495 Mich 184 (2014) (standard of review for trial-court factual findings in child-protection proceedings)
In re Diehl, 329 Mich App 671 (2019) (definition and application of clear-error review)
In re McCarrick/Lamoreaux, 307 Mich App 436 (2014) (preliminary hearing duties: authorize petition and determine interim placement)
In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426 (1993) (preliminary hearing is the formal review of a petition)
In re Ferranti, 504 Mich 1 (2019) (discussion of preliminary-hearing jurisprudence; cited as overruled on other grounds)
In re Ballard, 323 Mich App 233 (2018) (statutory interpretation: apply plain statutory language)