Judge orders dual goal of adoption with concurrent reunification in Jamal Gale case; next review July 8

A Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court judge on the record set a dual permanency goal—adoption with a concurrent goal of reunification—for the infant identified in court as Jamal Gale and kept the child in the same foster home, while scheduling the next permanency review for July 8 at 9 a.m.

The move came after the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) asked the court to change the child’s goal from reunification to adoption because of what agency counsel described as the mother’s continuing instability and inconsistent engagement with services. Tasha Thomas, counsel for the department, urged the court to make adoption the primary goal, saying the evidence in the report and recent testimony did not support a safe return “within any reasonable amount of time.”

The change matters because the court also directed DHHS to be prepared to file a petition for termination of parental rights if the mother’s circumstances have not meaningfully improved at the next review. The judge said that if conditions are unchanged at the July review, the department will be ordered to file a termination petition within 28 days.

The guardian ad litem, Ariel Berger, told the court she supported the agency’s request for a goal change or a dual goal, citing the length of time the case has been open and the child’s age when removed. Berger said the child is “doing well” in the current foster placement and that the case needs to move toward a stable permanency plan.

DHHS caseworker Hunter Bosher testified about the department’s efforts and recommended changing the goal to adoption with a concurrent reunification option so the agency could continue monitoring the mother’s progress. Bosher told the court the department had made referrals—mental-health and substance-use assessments and financial empowerment resources—and reported that the mother missed or arrived late to several parenting times; the agency has implemented a new requirement that the mother arrive an hour before scheduled visits because of repeated late arrivals.

Mother Margaret Gail testified at length. She acknowledged unemployment, inconsistent attendance for parenting time and prior positive drug screens, and said she had been working to establish housing, local mental-health care and transportation. “Yes. I’m upset about that,” Gail said when told the agency recommended changing the goal to adoption.

The court admitted the DHHS court report with attachments without objection and found that reasonable efforts had been made to provide services. After hearing testimony and reviewing a psychological evaluation that concluded the mother was not competent to be a primary caregiver at this time, the judge concluded a dual goal was appropriate and set the next review for July 8 at 9:00 a.m. in conjunction with a continued hearing on putative-father issues. The child will remain in DHHS custody and in the same foster home.

The court also directed the department to continue attempts to identify any putative fathers, to pursue publication for an unknown putative father if necessary, and to be prepared to file for termination of parental rights if the mother’s circumstances do not change by the next review.

No petition to terminate parental rights was filed at today’s hearing; the court expressly declined to order immediate filing but required DHHS to be ready to file within 28 days after the next review if conditions remain unchanged.

Background: The case has been open about eight months, and court records and testimony reference prior psychological testing and a recent psychological evaluation by Brent Smith that found significant concerns about the mother’s capacity to parent. The judge noted the child came into care as a newborn and emphasized the urgency of establishing permanency.

Votes and formal actions at a glance: the court admitted the DHHS court report and attachments (admitted without objection); the court set a dual permanency goal of adoption with concurrent reunification; the court scheduled the next review and permanency-planning hearing for July 8 at 9:00 a.m.; the child remains in DHHS custody in the same foster home; the court directed DHHS to be prepared to file a termination petition within 28 days of the next review if circumstances warrant. No termination petition was filed at this hearing.

The judge closed the hearing by instructing DHHS and counsel to prepare the necessary filings and to return for the scheduled review, noting the department should be ready to proceed toward termination if the mother does not show sustained progress.