Lenawee County judge continues jurisdiction, keeps therapeutic visitation for Sherwood children

A judge in Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court continued the court's jurisdiction in the case involving parent Colton Sherwood and ordered therapeutic visitation to continue while the family completes in‑home services and the department and attorneys review newly filed reports.

The court’s action follows testimony that Parkside Family Counseling’s in‑home therapy (IHT) has produced measurable progress for the two younger children, while the oldest child remains placed with his grandfather. The judge set the next review hearing for 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6.

The department provided several documents to the court and attorneys at the hearing, including a psychological evaluation by Battle Creek and Associates (completed in November), IHT reports from Parkside Family Counseling and recent therapeutic‑visit reports. The court agreed to receive the newly produced materials into the file and allowed counsel time to lodge any objections and to use the documents at the next hearing.

Sasha Thomas, counsel for the department, asked the court to continue jurisdiction and leave parenting plans subject to the in‑home therapy team’s recommendations. "At this time, we are still asking the court just to continue jurisdiction," Thomas said, noting additional work remained with the oldest child and his father.

Defense counsel Michael Brooks told the court that Colton Sherwood pleaded guilty in a related criminal case on Jan. 29 to third‑degree child abuse and that his sentencing is scheduled for March 13. Brooks said the client may receive a short jail term and asked the agency to explore services available during incarceration and the possibility of Zoom visits if allowed by the jail.

The department’s witness described progress in the IHT, saying caregivers had learned strategies that reduced household chaos and that both younger children showed improvement. The department advised that, when IHT is successfully completed, therapists indicated it might be appropriate to move the younger two from directed therapeutic visits to unsupervised visits with safety planning.

Guardian ad litem Carson Howard reported meeting with the children and their mother and recommended continuing supervised parenting time now while observing progress at the family team meetings and in therapy. The judge told the parties she would "follow that recommendation" and continue supervised parenting time for the moment while remaining open to a future expansion to unsupervised parenting time if clinicians and the guardian recommend it.

The court also addressed logistics and evidence handling: several parties reported that the court report and attachments had been circulated to counsel at the hearing after a delayed production; the judge allowed objections to be lodged in the next review period and accepted the attachments into the file for now.

On case placement, the judge found the children are in the least‑restrictive placements necessary: the two younger children remain with their parent caregiver and the oldest child remains with his grandfather. The judge said she was "glad to hear that there have been reunification efforts being made, including the therapeutic visitation," and that she would continue to include therapeutic visitation in the case plan and would not allow the family to discontinue Parkside services until a replacement provider was found.

The court set a 90‑day review for 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6, and directed the parties and agency to continue to monitor the family’s progress and to submit any objections or updates in advance of that hearing. The court also directed the department, guardian ad litem, and therapists to continue coordinating and to provide clarifying information about timing and next steps before the May review.

Background and documents filed: the department reported that the psychological evaluation from Battle Creek and Associates had been delayed and was provided to counsel at the hearing. Parkside Family Counseling provided IHT progress notes and therapeutic visitation reports. Counsel and the judge agreed the late production could be addressed at the next review period so parties could challenge or cross‑examine the authors of the reports if needed.

The court’s orders and scheduling leave in place supervision of parenting time for now, continued therapeutic visitation and the existing placements for the children, with the possibility of unsupervised visits for the younger children later if clinicians recommend that step.

Notes: The transcript shows the criminal plea and sentencing date are part of the related criminal case; the probate hearing acknowledged that timeline but did not substitute for the criminal court’s eventual sentence or probation terms.