Rule 3.947.Other Placement Review Proceedings

MCR 3.947 puts a short, paper-based check on one kind of placement: a juvenile's placement in a qualified residential treatment program. The rule is unusual in this subchapter for what it does not require. No hearing is required. The review can run entirely on a petition, supporting documents, and a written order.

The ex parte petition

Subrule (A)(1) puts the filing obligation on the Agency and starts the clock at the juvenile's initial placement. Within 45 days of that placement, the Agency must file an ex parte petition asking the court to approve or disapprove it. The petition does not stand alone. Under subrule (A)(1)(a) it must be accompanied by the assessment, the determination, and the documentation made by the qualified individual, so the court receives the underlying clinical work rather than a summary of it. Subrule (A)(1)(b) requires the Agency to serve the petition and the accompanying documentation on all parties. The petition is ex parte in the sense that the reviewer may rule on it without convening anyone, but the parties see what was filed.

The 14 day decision

Subrule (A)(2) gives the reviewer 14 days from filing. That reviewer is either the court or an administrative body appointed or approved by the court independently. Whichever it is reviews the petition and any supporting documentation and issues an order approving or disapproving the placement.

The order cannot be a checkbox. It must carry individualized findings on three questions:

• whether the needs of the juvenile can be met in a foster family home;
• if not, whether the placement provides the most effective and appropriate level of care for the juvenile in the least restrictive environment; and
• whether that placement is consistent with the goals in the permanency plan for the juvenile.

The sequence of those findings does the analytic work. The first asks whether a family setting would serve, and the second is framed to follow a negative answer to it. A treatment program is measured against the family home first, then against the least restrictive alternative, then against the plan the case is already following.

The subrule closes with two housekeeping directives that are easy to miss. The court shall serve the order on parties. And the court is not required to hold a hearing on the ex parte petition under this subrule, which confirms that the review may be conducted on the documents.