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