Approved, SCAO � PCS CODE: RMH/OFETCS CODE: ERH/OFERSTATE OF MICHIGANJUDICIAL CIRCUIT - FAMILY DIVISIONCOUNTY ORDER AFTER REMOVAL HEARING(CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS)ORDER 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.en-USTHE COURT FINDS: 3. � � a. � This emergency removal hearing is held � preadjudication � postadjudication � under MCR 3.974(C). � � Protective custody of the child(ren) was already ordered on en-US en-US en-US(form JC 05b or other)en-US. � Taking the child(ren) into protective custody was necessary to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the child(ren), and � it � is � is not � necessary that removal continue pending the next hearing en-US(see item 18)en-US. � � Contrary to the welfare findings were made in the order authorizing the emergency removal en-US(form JC 05b or other)en-US. � � Each parent, guardian, or legal custodian from whom the child(ren) was/were removed has received a written � � statement of the reasons for the emergency removal and has been advised of his/her rights in accordance with � MCR 3.974(C)(3). � � � b. � This removal hearing is held � preadjudication � postadjudication � under MCR 3.974(B). The child(ren) � has not/have not been removed prior to this hearing and an order to take the child(ren) into protective custody � � is not necessary. � � is necessary. Under MCL 712A.2(b) and MCR 3.965(C) there is reasonable cause to believe: � 1) � the child(ren) is/are at substantial risk of harm or is/are in surroundings that present an imminent risk of harm and � the child(ren)222s immediate removal from those surroundings is necessary to protect the child(ren)222s health and � � safety, � 2) � the circumstances warrant issuing this order, � 3) � consistent with the circumstances, reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of � the child(ren) as stated in item 7, � 4) � no remedy other than protective custody is reasonably available to protect the child(ren), and � 5) � continuing to reside in the home is contrary to the child(ren)222s welfare because: en-US(Attach separate sheets as necessary.) 4. � The parent(s), guardian, or legal custodian were present and/or attempts were made to secure the presence of each parent, � guardian, or legal custodian. 5. � The lawyer-guardian ad litem for the child(ren) was present. � 6. � The child(ren) is/are Indian as defined in MCR 3.002(12). The petitioner � � has � � has not � given notice of this � removal hearing as required by MCR 3.920(C)(1). � en-US The hearing must be adjourned pending conclusion of a removal hearing required by MCR 3.967. � en-US The removal hearing required by MCR 3.967 was conducted in conjunction with this hearing en-US(see required findings in item 10). � A qualified expert, en-USNameen-US , testified as required by law. American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order After Removal Hearing (Child Protective Proceedings) � (12/18) � Page of Order of Case No. Petition No. � 7. � � a. � Consistent with the circumstances, reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate removal of the child(ren) from the � � home were made as determined in the order authorizing the emergency removal en-US(form JC 05b or other)en-US. en-USOR � � b. � Consistent with the circumstances, reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate removal of the child(ren) � � from the home. Those efforts include: (Specify below.) � en-USOR � � � c. � The child(ren) is/are Indian, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence and the testimony of a qualified � � expert witness who has knowledge about the child-rearing practices of the Indian child222s tribe, that active efforts � � have � have not � been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent � � the breakup of the Indian family. These efforts have proved � unsuccessful, � successful, � the continued � � custody of the child(ren) by the parent or Indian custodian � is � is not � likely to result in serious emotional or � physical damage to the child(ren), and the child(ren) � should � should not � be removed from the home. � � en-US(Specify below.) � The efforts for 7.b. or 7.c. are: (Specify the efforts from 7.b. or 7.c. here. If the child is an Indian child, specify active efforts as defined by � � MCR � 3.002[1] and MCL 712B.3[a].) � � d. � Reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate removal of the child(ren) from the home were not made. � 8. � a. � Reasonable efforts are not required to prevent or eliminate the child(ren)222s removal from the home due to the � � mother � father � subjecting the child(ren) to the aggravated circumstance(s) of � en-US en-US as provided in section MCL 722.638(1) and (2), and as evidenced � by � en-US � en-US � en-US en-US . � � mother222s � father222s � conviction for murder of another child of the parent. � � mother222s � father222s � conviction for voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent. � � mother222s � father222s � conviction for aiding or abetting in the murder or manslaughter of another � � child of the parent, attempting to murder the child(ren) or another child of the parent, or conspiring or soliciting to � � commit the murder of the child(ren) or another child of the parent. � � mother222s � father222s � conviction for felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to the � � child(ren) or another child of the parent. � � mother222s � father222s � involuntary termination of parental rights to a sibling of the child(ren) and � failure by that parent to rectify the conditions that led to that termination. � � mother � father � being required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act. � � b. � Reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family to make it possible for the child(ren) to safely return home are � � not required because the parent subjected the child or another child of the parent to one of the circumstances � � stated above. � � en-USOR � � still recommended because: � � (When item 8 is checked, either complete item 10 below or schedule a permanency planning hearing within 28 days of this determination.) � American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order After Removal Hearing (Child Protective Proceedings) � (12/18) � Page of Order of Case No. Petition No. � 9. � � a. � Reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify the family to make it possible for the child(ren) to safely � return home. � � b. � Reasonable efforts shall not be made to preserve and reunify the family because it would be detrimental to the � child(ren)222s health and safety. � � 10. � Because reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate removal or to reunite the child(ren) and family are not required, � a permanency planning hearing was conducted. en-US(en-USUse and attach form JC 19 , Order Following Dispositional Review/Permanency � � en-USPlanning Hearing.) � 11. � Custody of the child(ren) with the parent/guardian/legal custodian � � a. � presents a substantial risk of harm to the child(ren)222s life, physical health, or mental well-being. � � No provision of service or other arrangement except removal of the child(ren) is reasonably available to adequately � safeguard the child(ren) from the risk of harm to the child(ren)222s life, physical health, or mental well-being. � � � Conditions of custody at the placement away from the home and with the individual with whom the child(ren) is/are � placed are adequate to safeguard the child(ren)222s health and welfare. � � � b. � does not present a substantial risk of harm to the child(ren)222s life, physical health, or mental well-being. � 12. � � 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 16 to order sibling contact)en-US: � 13. � Parenting time with en-US en-US , even if supervised, may be harmful to the child(ren). � en-USIT IS ORDERED: � 14. � The child(ren) � � � a. � is/are placed with the department for care a