Approved, SCAO � PCS CODE: OCPTCS CODE: ADH/OFAHSTATE OF MICHIGANJUDICIAL CIRCUIT - FAMILY DIVISIONCOUNTY ORDER OF ADJUDICATION(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. � 3. � Removal date: en-US en-US en-US(Specify for each child if different.)en-USTHE COURT FINDS: 4. � A petition has been submitted alleging that the above child(ren) come(s) within the provisions of MCL 712A.2(b). 5. � The child(ren) � is/are � is not/are not � subject to the continuing jurisdiction of another court. � � Court: en-US 6. � � Notice of hearing was given as required by law. � en-US Notice of proceedings is to be given as required by law. 7. � � a. � Based on testimony, there is probable cause to believe the legal/putative father(s) is/are: � en-US(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 natural father was notified as required by law and failed to establish paternity within the time set by the court. The � natural father waives all rights to further notice, including the right to notice of termination of parental rights and the right � to an attorney. 8. � The respondent(s) en-USName(s) � � en-US � � did not appear � en-US appeared in court in person or by en-USManner of appearanceen-US and � was/were represented by an attorney. � en-US waived representation by an attorney. � 9. � The plea by en-USName(s)en-US � is knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily made. American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order of Adjudication (Child Protective Proceedings) � (12/18) � Page of Order of Case No. Petition No. 10. � After � � trial, � admission of plea, � no contest plea, � and by � � a preponderance of the evidence, � en-US clear and convincing evidence, � � a. � there are no statutory grounds to exercise jurisdiction over the child(ren). � � b. � there are statutory grounds to exercise jurisdiction over the child(ren) (MCL 712A.2[b]). The statutory ground(s) is/are: � � failure to provide, when able to do so, support, education, medical, surgical, or other necessary care for health or � morals. � � substantial risk of harm to mental well-being. � � abandonment by parents. � � lack of proper custody or guardianship. � � an unfit home environment, by reason of neglect, cruelty, drunkenness, criminality, or depravity on the part of a � parent, guardian, nonparent adult, or other custodian. � � failure to comply with a limited guardianship placement plan. � � failure to comply with a court-structured guardianship plan. � � when a guardianship is in place, failure to provide support or to regularly visit, contact or communicate with the � child(ren) for a period of 2 years, either before or after a guardianship petition was filed and a support order entered. � � the juvenile is in danger of substantial physical or psychological harm and is dependent because � � the juvenile is homeless or not domiciled with a parent or other legally responsible person. � � the juvenile has repeatedly run away from home and is beyond the control of a parent or other legally responsible � person. � � the juvenile is alleged to have committed a commercial sexual activity as that term is defined in MCL 750.462a � � or a delinquent act that is the result of force, fraud, coercion, or manipulation exercised by a parent or other adult. � � the juvenile222s custodial parent or legally responsible person has died or has become permanently incapacitated � and no appropriate parent or legally responsible person is willing and able to provide care for the juvenile. 11. � Specific findings of facts and law are � on the record. � in the attached written opinion. � en-US as noted below. � � 12. � � a. � Contrary to the welfare findings were made in a prior order. � � b. � It is contrary to the welfare of the child(ren) to remain in the home because: en-US(Attach separate sheets as necessary.) � � � � 13. � � a. � Consistent with the circumstances, reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate removal of the child(ren) from the � home were made as determined in a prior order. � 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 13.b or 13.c are: en-US(Specify the efforts from 13.b or 13.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. � � e. � Reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate removal of the child(ren) from the home were not required as determined � in a prior order. � en-USNote: en-USIf the child(ren) were not removed before adjudication and the court determines at trial that removal is necessary, the en-UScourt must make the required findings regarding contrary to the welfare and reasonable efforts to prevent removal. American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order of Adjudication (Child Protective Proceedings) � (12/18) � Page of Order of Case No. Petition No. � 14. � 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: � � en-US(When item 14 is checked, either complete item 16 below or schedule a permanency planning hearing within 28 days of this determination.) � � 15. � en-US a. Reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify the family to make it possible for the child(ren) to safely � return home. � en-US 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. � � 16. � Because reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate removal or to reunite the child(ren) and family are no