Rule 3.966.Other Placement Review Proceedings

MCR 3.966 gathers four ways a placement can be revisited between the scheduled hearings of a child protective case. Each has its own trigger, its own filing window, and its own decision standard.

Review on a party's motion

Subrule (A)(1) makes review mandatory when a party moves for it. The court must review the placement order or the initial service plan and may modify either if modification is in the best interest of the child. If the motion asks for removal from a parent, guardian, or legal custodian, the court runs the hearing under the placement procedures in MCR 3.965(B) and (C) rather than a lighter standard. Subrule (A)(2) adds that if the child is removed and disposition has not been completed, the court holds a dispositional hearing under MCR 3.973.

Challenging the agency's placement decision

Subrule (B) creates a narrow path for testing where the supervising agency has decided to place a child. Five conditions must all be met before the court may review: the child has been removed from the home; the agency made its decision after identifying, locating, and consulting with relatives to see whether a fit and appropriate relative could meet the child's developmental, emotional, and physical needs instead of nonrelative foster care; the agency gave written notice of the decision; a person receiving that notice disagreed and told the child's lawyer-guardian ad litem in writing within 5 days of receiving notice; and the lawyer-guardian ad litem concluded the decision is not in the child's best interest.

The filing and hearing deadlines are short. Under subrule (B)(2), the lawyer-guardian ad litem must file the petition for review within 14 days after the date of the agency's written placement decision. Under subrule (B)(3), the court must commence a review hearing on the record within 7 days of the filing.

Foster Care Review Board disputes

Subrule (C) applies when the Foster Care Review Board, after an investigation, tells the court it disagrees with a proposed change in placement by the agency. It reaches only children who are not permanent wards of the Michigan Children's Institute, and a hearing is mandatory. The court sets it no sooner than 7 days and no later than 14 days after receiving the board's notice, and notifies the foster parents, each interested party, and the prosecuting attorney if that attorney has appeared.

The evidentiary rules are loose and the burden runs against change. The court may hear testimony from the agency and any other interested party and may consider any other evidence bearing on the proposed change, with the Rules of Evidence set aside. Under subrule (C)(2)(d), the court must order the continuation or restoration of placement unless it finds the proposed change is in the child's best interests.

Qualified residential treatment programs

Subrule (D) builds a paper review around a restrictive placement. Within 45 days of the child's initial placement in a qualified residential treatment program, the agency files an ex parte motion asking the court to approve or disapprove the placement, attaching the assessment, determination, and documentation made by the qualified individual and serving all parties.

The court, or an administrative body it appointed or approved, then has 14 days from filing to review the motion and issue an order. The order carries individualized findings on whether the child's needs can be met in a foster family home, whether the placement provides the most effective and appropriate level of care in the least restrictive environment, and whether it fits the goals in the permanency plan. Subrule (D)(2) states that no hearing is required on the ex parte motion, and the court serves the order on the parties.