Court continues Ledbetter pretrial after paternity is confirmed; department to amend petition

Judge Shauna, presiding in Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court, continued the Ledbetter case pretrial to Monday, March 10, at 10:30 a.m. after attorneys said DNA testing had established paternity and the Department planned to amend its petition to name the biological father as a respondent.

The Department’s attorney, Sajah Thomas, told the court, “it is our intention to file a petition naming him as a respondent given some of the concerns that we had at the onset of this case when it was brought to CPS attention. But otherwise, that should be coming within the next day or 2.” The statement explained why the department asked the court for time to file the formal amendment.

Why this matters: the amendment would formally name the man identified by DNA testing in the ongoing child-protective matter, which affects who may be subject to the court’s jurisdiction and the department’s case-service plan. Attorneys and agency staff also discussed service referrals, tribal-notice obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the child’s current foster placement.

During the hearing, Michael McFarland, attorney for the father, said his client would accept the DNA result and the related jurisdictional allegations: “if the only amendment is going to be that he is the biological father, we would stipulate to that through the DNA testing, and there are allegations against them here that we're prepared to admit, for the court to take jurisdiction.” McFarland said he did not want additional delays to reunification efforts if no new allegations were added.

Sajah Thomas and court staff said Native American heritage searches had been sent to multiple tribes and that documentation was filed with the clerk’s office on Feb. 13, 2025. Thomas told the court she had received an email from one tribe denying eligibility and that the department would compile a chart of which tribes were notified and any responses. Defense counsel noted he had not received signed postal-return “green cards” indicating service by mail to the tribes.

Tyson Howard, the guardian ad litem, said he was agreeable to stipulating to paternity and requested copies of the tribal-search materials. Court staff said they would follow up to ensure the proper listed ICWA agents signed any tribe responses before the court relies on them.

Agency worker Miss Madrid, logged in from Fostering Solutions, described contact with the father and an initial proposed service plan: “He is understanding of what we will be asking from him, and I do believe he has already started, parenting classes through care pregnancy of Lenaway.” She told the court she had a brief family-team meeting before a parenting-time visit and that referrals could proceed despite the department not yet formally naming the father in the petition.

Court action and next steps: the court continued the pretrial to March 10, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. to give the department time to file an amended petition naming the biological father as a respondent and to allow counsel time to review tribal-notice documentation. The court also directed the agency to continue providing referrals and visitation so the father could begin services while the amendment was prepared.

Documentation on the record included the DNA testing (some counsel said they had copies; others said they had not received the testing attachment but had the paternity order) and the Feb. 13 tribal-notice submissions. Counsel agreed the department would supply the list of designated tribal recipients and any additional responses for the record before the next pretrial.

The court said its forthcoming order will reflect the finding that the individual identified by DNA testing is the child’s biological father and closed the hearing until the March 10 date.