Judge accepts two no-contest pleas, schedules disposition in child-protection petition

Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court Judge Salih on record acknowledged service of a petition seeking removal of children and accepted no-contest pleas from two fathers, Christopher Carter and Mark Kamen, in a child-protection case. The court also scheduled an initial disposition hearing for Feb. 28 at 10:00 a.m. and discussed placement plans for the children while case services continue.

The hearing opened with the court confirming that a petition requesting removal had been filed and that no ex parte removal had been granted. Rachel Wazzyk, a CPS investigator for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), testified that she drafted the petition and described her efforts to serve the parents. "I am a CPS investigator at DHHS, and I, was assigned this case to investigate," Wazzyk said, and she told the court she filed proofs of service the prior evening showing electronic and personal service to the parents at specified times.

Why this matters: The court—s acceptance of no-contest pleas means the petition—s allegations will provide a factual basis for developing case service plans and may later be used in termination proceedings if necessary. The placement decisions and case services the court and DHHS order will determine where the children live and what services parents must complete.

Key facts and immediate outcomes

- Proof of service: The court reviewed a filed proof of service indicating the petition and notice of hearing were sent by email to Mark Kamen at 3:08 p.m. and to Anthony Barillo at 3:20 p.m.; Rebecca Whitton was personally served at a hotel (the Carlton Lodge) at about 4:00 p.m.; and Christopher Carter was personally served at about 5:08 p.m. the previous day. The investigator testified the e-mail and texts showed delivery and that personal service was completed for Whitton and Carter.

- No-contest pleas entered: Christopher Carter and Mark Kamen each waived reading of the petition and entered no-contest pleas to the petition—s allegations. The court advised both men of the rights they waived by pleading no contest, including the right to trial and to confront witnesses, and warned that a plea can be used later in a parental-termination proceeding.

- Factual basis and stipulation: Attorneys stipulated to accepting the petition as the factual basis for the no-contest pleas rather than taking further testimony.

- Placement positions and next steps: Sasha Thomas, counsel for DHHS, told the court, "we are agreeable for the in home jurisdiction," describing DHHS—s position that Mark Kamen—s children could remain in-home with his father present and that services could begin in that setting. Christopher Carter—s attorney stated Carter supports removal from the respondent mother; Whitton (the mother) indicated she did not wish removal for the two children currently in her care but requested a removal hearing for those two children because she said she has shelter available in Monroe County that could accept them.

- Scheduling: The court set the initial disposition date for Friday, Feb. 28, at 10:00 a.m. and directed the parties to work with the caseworker to draft a case services plan addressing identified needs.

Statements and clarifications from the hearing

- Wazzyk on service and case history: Wazzyk told the court she attempted email, text and phone contact and personally served Whitton at the Carlton Lodge. She also summarized the family—s prior child-welfare history, saying the children had been removed in May 2021 and returned in April 2023, with the prior case closing in July 2023; she said she reviewed mySACWIS records but did not find prior Native American inquiry entries beyond her conversations with the parents.

- Court on Indian-child inquiry (ICWA): The court asked Wazzyk to ask parents about any Native American heritage and to check the system and case history for prior inquiries; the court directed follow-up to ensure proper inquiry under applicable standards.

- Advice of rights: The judge explained the possible consequences of a no-contest plea (continued investigation, temporary wardship, placement with relatives or foster care, ordered services, and possible termination of parental rights) and confirmed both fathers understood those consequences.

What was not decided

The court did not issue a final custody order at this hearing. Placement for Whitton—s two children remained contested and the court scheduled a future removal hearing on that subset; the final custodial arrangement for all children will depend on the forthcoming case services plan and any placement hearings.

Next steps

The parties are to work with the DHHS caseworker to develop a case services plan, the court will monitor progress at the Feb. 28 initial disposition hearing, and the court directed staff to obtain documents establishing parentage where needed.

Ending

The court recessed to allow attorneys to consult with clients and to permit further scheduling and document-gathering; no additional orders were entered on the record at the end of the session.