In Re schaefer/mitteer/vest Minors
359609
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 14, 2022Background
- DHHS filed a petition the morning of November 8, 2021, alleging physical abuse, failure to protect a child (LS) from sexual abuse, an ongoing bed‑bug infestation, and parental instructions to children not to disclose home events. The petition sought removal of five children and termination of the mother’s rights to one child.
- A preliminary hearing was held the same day; respondent‑mother was served that morning and attended with counsel. DHHS investigator Heather Hockanson testified consistent with the petition.
- Mother’s counsel requested an adjournment to subpoena witnesses and obtain investigatory materials and objected to service timing; the trial court denied the adjournment and authorized filing the petition and removal of the children.
- The trial court found probable cause and that removal was necessary because custody with mother posed a substantial risk of harm (physical abuse, lack of protection from sexual abuse, bed‑bug infestation, and secrecy enforced on children). The court also found reasonable efforts had been made to avoid removal.
- Mother appealed, challenging (1) denial of adjournment/denial of discovery and insufficient notice (procedural due process), (2) adequacy of DHHS efforts and necessity of removal, and (3) removal of siblings under anticipatory‑neglect doctrine. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHHS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of adjournment / due process | Denial deprived mother of meaningful hearing; she needed time to subpoena witnesses and review evidence | Same‑day hearing permissible given alleged sexual abuse; mother failed to identify specific witnesses or evidence she would have produced | Affirmed — denial not reversible; mother made only vague offers of proof and thus failed to show prejudice |
| Pre‑hearing discovery and timing of notice | Entitled to discovery under MCR 3.922(A)(1) and service should have been earlier | MCR 3.922’s 21‑day production applies before trial (not preliminary hearing); mother received notice, counsel, and opportunity to participate | Affirmed — no rule violation at preliminary stage; notice was constitutionally adequate under Mullane standard |
| Removal / reasonable efforts to avoid removal | DHHS did not make sufficient or alternative efforts; removal unnecessary | Trial court found prior services (benefits, prior counseling) and that no available services would adequately prevent imminent risk | Affirmed — trial court’s findings that reasonable efforts were made and removal was necessary were not erroneous |
| Removal of siblings (anticipatory neglect) | Removal of other children was unsupported by evidence; anticipatory‑neglect doctrine insufficient here | Evidence of bed‑bug infestation, physical abuse of multiple children, and lack of parental protection showed similar risk to all children | Affirmed — no marked differences among children; anticipatory‑neglect application supported removal of all children |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394 (2014) (procedural‑due‑process standard and de novo review in child‑protective proceedings)
- In re Williams, 333 Mich App 172 (2020) (harmless‑error/no relief when no offer of proof about requested adjournment)
- In re Benavides, 334 Mich App 162 (2020) (scope of preliminary hearing and its purposes)
- In re Kellogg, 331 Mich App 249 (2020) (limitations of anticipatory‑neglect doctrine where children differ materially)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 US 306 (1950) (constitutional notice requirement must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)