Judge upholds foster care review board; keeps 7-month-old in current placement, sets 90-day review

Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court — A judge on Wednesday upheld the Foster Care Review Board’s recommendation to keep a 7-month-old child in her current placement and declined a late request to move the child to a relative in Lincoln Park, saying stability and proximity to ongoing services outweighed the relative’s request.

The decision preserves the child’s current placement and the court kept reunification with the mother, Ashley Casey, as the case goal. The judge set a 90-day review hearing for Nov. 18 at 11 a.m. and said a written order explaining the court’s reasoning would be mailed to the parties.

The court’s decision followed testimony from Heather Barnett, who identified herself as the child’s sister‑in‑law and said she has been visiting the child since July and is prepared to provide a permanent home. Barnett testified she lives in Lincoln Park, Michigan, about an hour and 15 minutes from Lenawee County; that she and her husband have five children at home (oldest 17, youngest 5); and that she is a registered nurse working on a progressive care unit. Barnett said she had confirmed that Ivy Rehab — which provides the child’s current therapeutic services — had locations near her and could provide appointments “as soon as next week” and that she would drive the child to Lenawee County for appointments if needed.

“I just think that it’s the best interest of the child to be with family,” Heather Barnett testified.

Michael McFarland, attorney for Ashley Casey, told the court his client had considered releasing parental rights but declined to do so at the hearing. “We’re not volunteer releasing the rights,” McFarland said, and said he had concerns about his client’s capacity to make that decision without further assessment.

Sasha Thomas, counsel for the Department, confirmed the department’s policy preference for relative placement but told the court the Foster Care Review Board had opposed the change and that, if the court adopts the board’s recommendation, the court should follow FAM 902 to preserve Title IV‑E funding. Thomas asked the court to ensure any order includes the required findings and, if necessary, a transcript of the hearing to support funding eligibility.

“I would ask that the court look at FAM 902 for a court‑ordered placement exception to ensure that the child's funding can continue to run,” Thomas said.

The court reviewed competing considerations. The judge noted the child has special needs and is receiving physical therapy, occupational therapy and infant mental health services; the child has shown developmental progress since removal from the mother’s care. The judge emphasized the importance of minimizing moves for a child with services already in place and the practical burdens of travel if the child were relocated to Detroit area services.

“Frankly, I’m not gonna require that this child would be transported once or twice a week all the way from Detroit down here for visits. That would be very hard on a child, especially a special needs child,” the judge said when explaining the decision to maintain the current placement.

Attorneys and the department agreed to continue reunification services for Casey. The court expressly noted that it did not have a termination petition before it and that, because Casey chose not to release her parental rights at the hearing, further proceedings (including a possible termination hearing) could follow if progress on reunification does not occur.

The court directed the Lenawee County Department of Health and Human Services to continue facilitating contact between the relative and the child consistent with agency policy and to maintain the child’s access to required therapies. The court scheduled the next permanency review for Nov. 18 at 11 a.m. and said the written order would follow by mail.

The record of today’s hearing includes testimony that the child is 7 months old, has had periodic overnight visits with the relative since July, and receives PT, OT and infant mental‑health services. The relative testified she has a crib, clothing and formula ready for placement and that she would limit or supervise maternal contact if that were in the child’s best interest. The department and the foster family reported that the child is bonded with the current caregivers and has shown measurable gains since removal in May.

The court’s ruling leaves the goal as reunification while retaining the child locally to preserve services and reduce travel burdens that the judge said would be harmful for a special‑needs infant. The court also ordered a written opinion that will document how the court considered the department’s recommendation and the Foster Care Review Board’s differing recommendation, consistent with the agency policy cited at the hearing.