Court Opinion

ID: 9946700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 05:06:25.961532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:39.807726
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                  revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                                                                       UNPUBLISHED
In re SARTAIN-RODRIGUEZ, Minors.                                       February 29, 2024

                                                                       No. 366690
                                                                       Ingham Circuit Court
                                                                       Family Division
                                                                       LC Nos. 22-000790-NA;
                                                                               22-000791-NA;
                                                                               22-000792-NA

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and JANSEN and GARRETT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        Respondent-father and his wife are the parents of three minor children. In April 2023, the
children were removed from their parents’ custody and placed into foster care after the trial court
found the family’s unsanitary living conditions and inadequate housing posed a significant risk of
harm to their wellbeing. On appeal, respondent-father is not challenging the initial removal of the
children from his care. Instead, he challenges the trial court’s May 2023 order continuing the
removal of his children.1 Respondent-father argues that the trial court clearly erred by finding
continued removal of his children was necessary because he obtained suitable housing and there
was no longer a substantial risk of harm to the children. Because the evidence supports the trial
court’s findings that respondent-father had not made sufficient progress towards alleviating the
conditions that brought the children under the court’s jurisdiction, the trial court did not clearly err
by continuing removal. We affirm.

                                         I. BACKGROUND

        This case arises out of the alleged neglect of the children’s personal hygiene, neglect of the
sanitary conditions of the home, and inadequate housing. In September 2022, the parents were
involved in child protective proceedings in California as a result of alleged physical abuse and
domestic violence. At the time of the proceedings, the family was living in a hotel room. Despite

1
  Although respondent-father’s wife was a co-respondent in the lower court proceedings, only
respondent-father is challenging the order on appeal.

                                                  -1-
being ordered not to leave California, the parents absconded with the children to Michigan. Upon
their departure, a California caseworker reported that the parents were $500 behind in rent and
their hotel room had “a foul odor, was in disarray, and the trash was overfilled.”

         Once in Michigan, Children’s Protective Services (CPS) and the Michigan Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) were made aware of the parents’ involvement in the
California proceedings and apprehension orders were issued taking the children into the care and
custody of DHHS. The parents subsequently filed a motion to review placement, which the trial
court granted, and the children were returned to their care subject to several conditions. DHHS
later filed a petition requesting that the trial court take jurisdiction over the children under MCL
712A.2(b)(1) (child subjected to substantial risk of harm) and (2) (unfit home environment).
DHHS did not seek removal of the children but instead recommended that the children remain in
the parents’ care subject to ongoing conditions. After a preliminary hearing, the trial court
authorized the petition and ordered that the children remain placed in the parents’ custody under
DHHS’s supervision.

        Over the next few months, the trial court held several pretrial hearings to assess the parents’
progress in obtaining suitable housing and to offer additional services. Initially, the parties
believed the parents were benefiting from the services, and DHHS anticipated dismissal of the
petition at adjudication. But the parents’ progress soon reversed course. In December 2023, the
family faced eviction from a homeless shelter because of the unsanitary conditions of their living
quarters. The parents were referred to the Intensive Neglect Services (INS) Program but failed to
make progress toward obtaining adequate housing. Although the family was initially able to avoid
eviction, within a few months, they again faced eviction because of the parents’ neglect of the
cleanliness of the room and their children’s hygiene. During a home visit in April 2023, CPS
workers, Brett Gates and Stephanie Dunnings, observed foul-smelling garbage strewn about the
room. Respondent-father showed little concern about the garbage and could not explain why it
had not been taken out to the dumpster. The children also appeared visibly unclean, and their hair
had become matted. Respondent-father admitted to the CPS workers that the family was facing
eviction about 10 days later but confirmed that he had not secured alternative housing. After the
home visit, the trial court entered apprehension orders removing the children from their parents’
home and placed them in foster care pending a removal hearing.

        DHHS then filed an amended petition to remove the children because the parents had not
secured a plan for housing or benefited from services, the children were unclean, and the home
was unsanitary and presented a safety risk. The petition alleged that school employees reported
that the children had been wearing “the same clothing for a week” and their parents had “turned
clothing inside out” when the children’s clothes were dirty. The children were also “being teased
by their peers due to being smelly” and they could “not recall the last time they bathed.” During
an April 5, 2023 custody review hearing, Gates testified that the parents did not use offered
resources to maintain appropriate hygiene and sanitary conditions, made no progress toward
obtaining adequate housing, and were facing eviction for a second time for failing to maintain
appropriate sanitary conditions of their home. Further, Gates noted that while the parents cleaned
the living space when told to do so, the home would quickly revert back to unsanitary conditions.
Gates also indicated that the children were being emotionally impacted and having difficulty with
their peers at school as a result of their uncleanliness. The trial court authorized the petition and
continued removal of the children.

                                                 -2-
        At adjudication, the parents pleaded to jurisdiction, admitting that they had neglected the
basic hygiene of the children and cleanliness of their home; they were unsuccessful in obtaining
adequate housing despite the extensive services offered to them; and these conditions affected the
children’s physical and mental health. The trial court also heard additional testimony on whether
the children’s removal remained appropriate. Gates and INS worker, Erin Hamel, testified that the
parents’ neglect of the children’s hygiene and cleanliness of the home, failure to make progress
toward obtaining adequate housing, and imminent eviction with no established next steps posed a
substantial risk of harm to the children’s health and well-being. The trial court agreed and found
that continued removal was appropriate. The trial court stated that “[w]hen housing is confirmed
with this family, I believe that with the parent’s active participation in services, reunification
should be swift.” The court also indicated that the parents could petition for a change of placement
before the next hearing if they obtained housing that was approved by DHHS.

       Less than a month later, at a May 2023 dispositional hearing, Child and Family Charities
caseworker, Danika Fenska, reported that the parents were living in a hotel, respondent-father had
obtained a job at the hotel to reduce their daily rate, and she observed their hotel room as clean.
Respondent-father described the hotel room as a “semi-studio apartment” with “a full kitchen and
two beds” as well as “room to put a play pen and also a couple of beds if need be.” The trial court
questioned whether the hotel room would be appropriate, permanent housing for three young
children and indicated more evidence would need to be presented regarding the adequacy of the
housing at the next review hearing. Based on its previous findings regarding removal and the
evidence presented during the hearing, the trial court found that removal remained necessary and
appropriate, and continued the children’s placement in foster care. This appeal followed.

                                          II. DISCUSSION

       Respondent-father contends that the trial court clearly erred by finding the continued
removal of his children was necessary because he obtained suitable housing and there was no
longer a substantial risk of harm to the children.

        We review a trial court’s factual findings for clear error. In re Benavides, 334 Mich App
162, 167; 964 NW2d 108 (2020). “A finding is only clearly erroneous if an appellate court is left
with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (cleaned up). “This Court
reviews de novo questions of law, including the interpretation and application of our court rules.”
In re McCarrick/Lamoreaux, 307 Mich App 436, 445; 861 NW2d 303 (2014). That means we
review the legal issue independently, with no required deference to the trial court. In re Ferranti,
504 Mich 1, 14; 934 NW2d 610 (2019). “Our purpose when interpreting court rules is to give
effect to the intent of the Michigan Supreme Court,” and “[i]f the plain and ordinary meaning of a
court rule’s language is clear, judicial construction is not necessary.” McCarrick/Lamoreaux, 307
Mich App. at 446.

         “In child protective proceedings, the trial court may remove the minor from the home
through the use of an order before or after an emergency removal, at the preliminary hearing, or at
a dispositional review hearing.” Id. at 459 (cleaned up). “If the trial court removes the child before
the initial dispositional hearing and does not terminate its jurisdiction in its dispositional order, it
must review its placement decision under MCR 3.975.” Id., citing MCR 3.966(A)(2) and MCR
3.973(G)(1). Under MCR 3.975(A), the court must evaluate “the continued need and

                                                  -3-
appropriateness for the child to be in foster care[.]” In doing so, “[t]he court must decide the extent
of the progress made toward alleviating or mitigating conditions that caused the child to be, and to
remain, in foster care.” MCR 3.975(F)(2). After its review, the court may order that the child be
returned home, change the child’s placement, or continue its previous order of removal. MCR
3.975(G)(1), (2), and (6).

        Throughout the lower court proceedings, respondent-father’s ability to obtain permanent
and stable housing was a significant concern. At the time of the May 2023 dispositional hearing,
respondent-father had only recently secured housing after being evicted, and was living in a hotel
room that he described as a “semi-studio apartment,” with two beds and “room to put a play pen
and also a couple of beds if need be.” Although the caseworker reported that the hotel room was
clean when she viewed it, respondent-father repeatedly demonstrated that he could not consistently
maintain sanitary living conditions. The trial court acknowledged that respondent-father’s recent
employment and new housing constituted a step in the right direction. But based on respondent-
father’s struggle to maintain stable housing and hygienic living conditions for his children, the
court questioned whether the hotel room was an appropriate and permanent housing solution and
indicated more evidence would be needed to make that determination.2

        Under MCR 3.975(G)(1) and (6), the trial court was permitted to order that the children be
returned to respondent-father’s custody or continue their placement in foster care. Based on the
evidence presented, the trial court chose to continue removal pending further evidence of the
adequacy of respondent-father’s new housing arrangements. Because a trial court has “broad
authority in effectuating dispositional orders once a child is within its jurisdiction,” In re Sanders,
495 Mich 394, 406; 852 NW2d 524 (2014), and, given the conditions that necessitated the
children’s removal and respondent-father’s lack of consistent progress toward alleviating those
conditions, we are not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court erred by finding that the
children’s placement in foster care remained necessary and appropriate.                            See
McCarrick/Lamoreaux, 307 Mich App at 463. Therefore, we affirm the May 2023 order
continuing the placement of the children in foster care.

                                                               /s/ Michael J. Kelly
                                                               /s/ Kathleen Jansen
                                                               /s/ Kristina Robinson Garrett

2
  Respondent-father emphasizes in his brief that continued removal was inappropriate because the
trial court had previously indicated “if suitable housing-reunification ASAP,” and the newly
obtained hotel room constituted suitable housing. While the hotel room was clean on the one
occasion it was observed, there was no determination made that the room was suitable for three
young children or that it could be consistently kept clean.

                                                 -4-