At a family court hearing, a judge accepted court-filed case service plans for three parents involved in a child-protection case, ordered supervised parenting time, and set a review for Nov. 18 at 10 a.m., the court said.

The caseworker who visited the placement and authored the court memo, Hunter Bosher, foster care worker with Catholic Charities, told the court the placement caregivers are “really good advocates for these children” and that “this placement is in these kids' best interests.” Bosher said the oldest child has ongoing behavioral issues, the youngest shows speech delays and caregivers are teaching sign language, and there is tension between the newly placed children and a child previously adopted by the caregivers.

The judge said the case service plan will become part of the court order and emphasized the court’s focus on safe transportation for the children. The court accepted a revised paragraph 17 to address transportation questions: parties agreed to language requiring parents to “provide the agency with a valid Michigan driver's license, proof of insurance and vehicle registration for anyone who may be transporting the children upon request of the foster care worker,” rather than using the provision as an absolute sanction, the record shows. Father Eric James Gilbert told the court he has never had a driver’s license and said he is unlikely to obtain one because of anxiety; the court and parties acknowledged that safety plans for transportation can accommodate people who do not drive.

Bosher reported upcoming and recent services: the oldest child has a Community Mental Health (CMH) appointment scheduled for Sept. 5; Kaylene (a parent) has a CMH appointment scheduled for Sept. 3 and was admitted to Hickman on Aug. 14, transferred to Hillsdale Hospital and released on Aug. 19. Bosher said parents have applied for Medicaid, had food‑stamp approval, applied for cash assistance, and planned housing steps including visiting a trailer park with a relative.

Defense and parent attorneys asked the court to add ADA considerations to the case service plan. Attorney (name listed in the record as) Mr. McFarlane asked whether Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations should be included; Bosher responded she had no objection to adding ADA compliance language and said she would check whether her office has an ADA compliance officer. The judge noted the court relies on case service plans ordered into the record to trigger related orders, including psychological evaluations if specified in the ordered plan.

On parenting time, Bosher said the current arrangement is one supervised visit per week for two hours; parents requested more frequent visits, and attorneys said they would seek expansions as the case progresses. The court directed that parenting time remain supervised “until further order of the court,” with the understanding that parenting time could be expanded as parents meet plan requirements and services progress.

The court ordered the children to remain under the jurisdiction of the court and placed with the Department of Health and Human Services in relative/kin placements judged to be the least restrictive safe option. The judge set the next review and permanency planning hearing for Nov. 18 at 10 a.m. and asked parties to provide updates on housing, benefits (including SSI), transportation arrangements, mental‑health treatment and other services identified in the case service plans.

The hearing record shows no formal objections to receiving the memo and the signed case service plans into evidence; attorneys for the parents and the guardian ad litem indicated agreement with the revisions discussed on the record.