Approved, SCAO þ PCS CODE: IDR/SRE/PPH-ORH/OPPTCS CODE: SRE/PPHSTATE OF MICHIGANJUDICIAL CIRCUIT - FAMILY DIVISIONCOUNTY ORDER AFTER DISPOSITIONAL REVIEW/PERMANENCY PLANNING HEARING(CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS)ORDER en-US 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. þ 3. þ Removal date: en-US en-US en-US(Specify for each child if different.) þ Last permanency planning hearing date: en-US en-US en-US(Specify for each child if different.) 4. þ As of the last order, the child(ren) named above was/were in the protective/temporary custody of the court, and þ remained in the home. þ en-US was/were placed with the department. þ 5. þ Notice of hearing for the þ review þ permanency planning þ en-US combined review and permanency planning þ hearing was served as required by law. þ en-US Notice of proceedings is to be given as required by law. þ 6. þ This hearing is being conducted under MCR 3.974(D)(2) for an Indian child who was removed from the home. The Indian þ child removal hearing þ was held with this hearing. þ was previously held. þ en-US is scheduled for en-US . þ en-USTHE COURT FINDS: 7. þ The lawyer-guardian ad litem þ has þ has not þ complied with the requirements of MCL 712A.17d. 8. þ þ a. þ There is probable cause to believe the legal/putative father(s) is/are: þ (Name each child, his/her father, and whether legal or putative.) þ þ b. þ The putative father of en-US en-US is unknown and cannot be identified. þ þ c. þ The putative father was notified as required by law and failed to establish paternity within the time set by the court. þ The putative father waives all rights to further notice, including the right to notice of termination of parental rights and þ the right to an attorney. 9. þ The court has considered the case service plan and other evidence presented. The findings below are specific to this case þ and are based upon this hearing and þ en-US the following report(s): en-USIdentify report(s) and date(s) of report(s) þ Specific conditions reviewed on the record as required by MCL 712A.19(6) were þ a. þ compliance with the case service plan with respect to services provided or offered to the child and his or her parent(s), þ guardian, or legal custodian and whether the parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian complied with and benefited from þ þ those services. þ b. þ compliance with the case service plan with respect to parenting time with the child and whether parenting time did not þ þ occur or was infrequent and the reasons why. þ c. þ the extent to which the parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian complied with each provision of the case service plan, prior þ court orders, and any agreement between the parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian and the agency. þ d. þ likely harm to the child if the child continued to be separated from his or her parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian. þ e. þ likely harm to the child if the child was returned to his or her parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian. en-USNote:en-US If it comes to the court222s attention or new allegations are made during this hearing that require the removal of the child(ren), removal must be en-USdone in accordance with MCR 3.974. American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order After Dispositional Review/Permanency Planning Hearing þ (12/18) þ Page of Order of Case No. Petition No. 10. þ Returning the child(ren) to the parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian þ would þ would not þ cause a substantial þ risk of harm to the child(ren)222s life, physical health, or mental well-being. þ 11. þ The child(ren) should not be returned to the parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian. en-US(State reasons for a. or b. in the space below.) þ þ a. þ The agency þ should þ should not þ initiate proceedings to terminate the parental rights to the child(ren) because: þ en-US b. The child has been in foster care for 15 months of the most recent 22 months, and the agency þ þ en-US should initiate proceedings to terminate the parental rights to the child(ren). þ þ should not initiate proceedings to terminate the parental rights to the child(ren) for the following compelling reasons: þ þ þ 12. þ þ a. þ Reasonable efforts þ were þ were not þ made to preserve and reunify the family to make it possible for þ þ child(ren) to safely return to the child(ren)222s home. en-US(Specify reasonable efforts below, and if applicable, the reasons for return.) þ 1) þ Reasonable efforts for reunification should be continued. þ 2) þ Those reasonable efforts were successful and the child(ren) should be released to þ þ en-USName(s) of parent(s), guardian, or legal custodianen-US . þ The reasonable efforts include: en-US(Specify.) þ þ þ b. þ Reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family to make it possible for the child(ren) to safely return to the þ child(ren)222s home are not required based on a prior order. þ þ 13. þ In accordance with MCL 712A.19(7), progress toward alleviating or mitigating the conditions that caused the child(ren) þ to be placed or to remain in temporary foster care þ þ þ was made by en-USList namesen-US . þ þ was not made by en-USList names . þ þ 14. þ The child(ren)222s continued placement þ en-US is necessary and appropriate and is meeting the child(ren)222s needs. þ en-US is no longer necessary or appropriate. þ 15. þ The child(ren) is/are Indian as defined in MCR 3.002(12), and placement þ remains þ en-US does not remain þ appropriate and þ does þ does not þ comply with MCR 3.967(F). þ American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order After Dispositional Review/Permanency Planning Hearing þ (12/18) þ Page of Order of Case No. Petition No. þ 16. The child(ren) is/are Indian and the court finds that active efforts þ þ have þ þ have not þ been made to provide þ þ remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. þ 17. þ *Reasonable efforts þ þ have þ þ have not þ been made to finalize the court-approved permanency plan of þ en-US a. return to the parent for the child(ren) named en-US þ en-US b. adoption for the child(ren) named en-US þ en-US c. legal guardianship for the child(ren) named en-US þ en-US d. placement with a fit and willing relative for the child(ren) named en-US þ en-US e. placement in another planned permanent living arrangement (APPLA) for the child(ren) age 16 or older named þ þ en-US þ þ due to the compelling reasons that: en-US(Specify the compelling reasons for another planned permanent living arrangement by entering the þ þ language that corresponds to the number[s] from the list on the last page.) þ þ The reasonable efforts made to finalize the court-approved permanency plan identified above include: þ þ en-US(Specify the permanency plan for each child and the reasonable efforts made toward finalizing that plan.) þ þ þ Because adoption is the court-approved permanency plan, the department shall be ordered to initiate proceedings to þ terminate parental rights. þ þ 18. þ The permanency planning goal in item 17 þ þ is appropriate. þ þ is no longer appropriate and shall be: þ þ en-US en-US . þ 19. The appointment of a juvenile guardian is in the best interest of the child(ren) named above in item 17.c. þ en-US The court þ has received and considered the information required by MCR 3.979(A)(1), and the proposed guardian should be appointed. þ 20. þ The department, foster home, or institutional placement þ has þ has not þ followed the reasonable prudent parenting þ standard that the child(ren) has/have regular opportunities to engage in age or developmentally appropriate activities. þ 21. 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 31 to order sibling contact)en-US: þ 22. Parenting time with en-US en-US , even if supervised, may be harmful to the child(ren). þ 23. þ A juvenile guardian was appointed and jurisdiction over en-US en-US under þ MCL 712A.2(b) should be terminated. en-US(This fi