Judge keeps reunification goal, continues out-of-home placement and orders supervised virtual visits

A Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court judge on Jan. 14 continued the out-of-home placement for five children and maintained reunification as the permanency goal while ordering supervised virtual parenting time and additional assessments and service confirmations.

The ruling comes after testimony from the court-appointed guardian ad litem and Department of Health and Human Services staff about the children's progress and outstanding referrals. Nicole Underwood, the guardian ad litem, told the court the children “were very excited to show me their bedrooms and all of the things they had got for Christmas,” and said the placements were meeting the children's needs.

Caitlin Young, a Department of Health and Human Services caseworker, reported that referrals for specialized testing and services had been submitted but were still pending approval. “I have submitted it, and I'm waiting on confirmation from our behavioral analyst,” Young said about the CTEC/CTAC referral intended to be routed to Easterseals for evaluations in the Upper Peninsula. Young also said a psychologist had been identified to perform parental psychological evaluations but that exact appointment dates had not been confirmed.

The court heard that three boys living in the Upper Peninsula were doing well in their placements and enjoying gifts they had received, while two daughters in a foster placement were generally stable but that the youngest daughter was facing school disciplinary issues. Young described a recent incident in which the child was suspended after hitting another youth with a Chromebook and leaving a racially offensive note; the department said it was awaiting the school's decision on whether charges would be filed.

Parents have engaged with case requirements but several services remain incomplete or delayed, the department said. Jessica Vance, the children's mother, told the court, “I've done basically everything that is on my case service plan other than the Psyche eval.” The department and attorneys said the family has had significant barriers arranging in-person services because three children are placed at a distance.

The court allowed supervised virtual parenting time to resume after a prior suspension that had been in place pending a therapist recommendation. The hearing record shows one supervised Zoom parenting time already occurred; Young said the visit had been emotional but generally positive and that Linda Edwards, a facilitator, will be arranging ongoing supervised virtual visits. The department asked for another 90-day review and an emergency planning hearing if needed.

The judge declined to return the children to parental custody at this time, citing the children’s complex trauma and ongoing need for assessments and consistent services. The bench ordered staff to keep pursuing the outstanding referrals and to consider using Easterseals as part of the evaluation process if local providers cannot meet demand. The judge said she would “leave that order in place” regarding supervised virtual visits and the previous limitations tied to the children's best interests.

The court also noted a separate matter: a proposed release for one child attributed to Benjamin Smith. The judge adjourned that status conference and directed that Mr. Smith verify the release under oath before the court will accept it. The next permanency planning and review hearing was set for April 21 at 1:30 p.m.

Court participants emphasized steps needed before reunification can occur: confirmed psychological evaluations for both parents, stable housing and employment, consistent counseling for the children, and clearer scheduling for in-person sibling contact given the geographic distances involved.