Judge continues child’s removal, orders supervised visits and daily phone contact; finds parent violated court order

At a review and permanency hearing in Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court, the judge continued removal of a child from a parent’s home and ordered professionally supervised visitation, daily phone contact and other conditions after finding a parent violated an earlier court order.

The finding matters because the judge tied the violation and the child’s pattern of school absences and hygiene problems to the court’s decision to keep the child in a relative placement while services proceed.

The court heard overlapping matters: a statutory review hearing, a show-cause (contempt) allegation and permanency planning. Katerina Dumont, the child’s court‑appointed guardian ad litem, reported that the child “was doing well” in the brother’s care, noting improvements in appearance, participation and that the child “enjoys being there.” Department worker Megan McVey testified the case service plans “have not been followed” and that the conditions that prompted removal “have not been rectified.”

The judge said testimony from a prior hearing established that the child’s mother had unsupervised contact in violation of the court’s order and that those contacts occurred “directly, at the consent of mister Marweli,” which the judge found amounted to a violation. The judge made a formal finding of violation but said that neither incarceration nor a financial penalty was appropriate at this time.

The court ordered the following actions and directions: the child will remain placed with the child’s brother, Michael Howard; foster care worker Sarah Harvey will manage the case going forward; the department will continue referrals already made, including a trauma assessment and a bonding assessment; parenting time is to continue under professional supervision; the court authorized one daily phone contact between the child and the father, subject to monitoring; and the court allowed the possibility of supervised unsupervised visits beginning June 1 if conditions are met. The judge told Howard to notify the foster care caseworker at least 48 hours in advance of any visits he allows and instructed the department to report on whether phone contacts stress the child.

On the record, department counsel and Dumont emphasized concerns documented in school records: the child had repeated unexcused absences and teachers reported fatigue, emotional withdrawal and declines in classroom behavior. During testimony, an attendance figure was discussed: 45 unexcused absences and 41 tardies were cited in the court packet, and the court relied on the school letter describing multiple instances when staff needed to brush the child’s hair for well over an hour.

Father (identified in court as mister Marweli) testified he had cleaned the home, installed a bathroom and obtained transportation and new Wi‑Fi service; he said he wanted more time with his child and that he would participate in the case service plan. The court and department noted inconsistent communication with the caseworker and that referrals for therapeutic services and Parkside family counseling had been made but intakes had not yet been confirmed.

The court set the next review and permanency planning hearing for July 22 at 2:30 p.m. and directed the department to file updated, organized reports before that date. The judge said the current placement with the child’s brother is the least restrictive and “is meeting the child’s needs,” but warned the father that failing to meaningfully participate in services could affect future visitation and custody decisions.