Court keeps 16-year-old at home amid ongoing truancy, mental‑health and safety concerns

At a review hearing in Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court, the court ordered that the child, Madison, remain placed with her mother while instructing the department and allied providers to pursue additional options, including a Qualified Residential Treatment Program assessment and possible show‑cause proceedings if services continue to be ignored.

The hearing centered on repeated truancy, safety episodes tied to mental‑health crises, inconsistent follow‑through by the mother on safety plans, and limited progress despite multiple providers working with the family. The court held a 90‑day review period and scheduled the next review and permanency planning hearing for Sept. 9 at 10:00 a.m.

Carson Howard, the guardian ad litem, reported visiting the child at home and described poor school attendance and academic performance during the reporting period. Howard said the child “did not regularly attend school” and noted concern about possible substance use and low effort in classes the child previously liked. Howard also told the court the child had “0 credits and will repeat the ninth grade.”

Chelsea Grant, a caseworker for the department, testified that multiple service providers have been involved — including truancy services, juvenile probation, Parkside, CMH, Adrian Counseling (ACPC), a parent aid and a wraparound team — but that engagement by the mother and child has been inconsistent. Grant said the reporting period had been “pretty rocky” and described repeated safety‑plan breaches that led to emergency room visits after the child reported suicidal thoughts and once obtained access to a knife.

Grant told the court the family recently declined a private program because it would not accept the family’s Medicaid and that Parkside’s intensive home treatment had closed for this child due to lack of progress. She said CMH will provide therapy for the child and that wraparound services had just begun. Grant also reported receiving a psychological evaluation and a CTAP/psychiatric report the morning of the hearing but had not circulated them because of timing.

Department counsel Sasha Thomas summarized next steps she supported and asked the court for ongoing oversight. Thomas said the department had discussed filing a show‑cause petition against the mother for failure to follow the case service plan and recommended making referrals for a QRTP assessment or Maximus assessment to determine whether a residential placement would be appropriate. Thomas asked the court for a 90‑day review and closer monitoring.

The court observed that reasonable efforts have been made by the department and partners, but that services “are not effective” because the mother and child are not consistently engaging. The presiding judge warned the mother that programs and community resources have limited capacity and said, “We have a child in this case who is literally, using them to her advantage in order to get out of trying to go to school and accomplish her goals.” The judge encouraged the department to pursue a QRTP evaluation and said the court was open to other placement options if the next report shows no progress.

The court also noted a companion delinquency case involving a May 15 alleged violation of release conditions and a forensic fluid drug screen administered through probation; the substance‑screen results were not clearly reported at the hearing. Defense counsel raised that the child had been the subject of a parental police report alleging unauthorized withdrawal of $60, and counsel for the family said the mother had tried to pursue criminal charges.

The court declined to appoint a separate attorney for the child at this time, saying it wanted to see the next review report. The court directed the department to continue efforts, to consider QRTP assessment eligibility, and to report back at the Sept. 9 review. No formal removal or foster‑care placement was ordered at the hearing.

The child will remain placed with her mother through the next review period. The court set the next review and permanency planning hearing for Sept. 9 at 10:00 a.m.