Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare Reunification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge ends court jurisdiction after Lenawee County reunification review
Summary
After a permanency review hearing in Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court, the judge terminated the court’s jurisdiction in a child-protection case, finding no immediate risk of harm and that both parents largely complied with court-ordered services.
A judge in Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court ordered the court's jurisdiction to end in a child-abuse-and-neglect case after a review hearing in which the department and attorneys said the parents had largely complied with their case service plans and the children were safe in their mother's home.
Court records and testimony at the hearing showed the three children remained living with their mother, Chanel Deakins, and that the department's court worker reported continued engagement with services and no immediate safety concerns.
Francesca Madrid, the court worker who filed the court report, told the court: "For Ms. Deakins, I would say substantial compliance. She has remained engaged with our services, has remained engaged with FRP, which is now My Family Together, continues engaged with DV Counseling, and will maintain that even after if the case closes." Madrid also reported home visits and private interviews with the children, and described the children's overall well-being.
Mother Chanel Deakins told the court, "I have came a very long way since the beginning of the case. I feel like I'm a stronger person for my children." Father Aaron Deakins described his parenting time as "amazing" and said the children "love every minute of what we do." Michael Brooks, attorney for the father, argued the hearing record met the legal standard for termination, saying, "There is no immediate or likelihood of any harm coming to these children being in their mother's home. That's what the statute requires to remove them and they're home."
Earlier in the hearing, Madrid had asked for an expedited review and said she requested a 30-day extension of court oversight "to ensure continued stability for the family" following a job change and car trouble for the mother. Several attorneys and the judge reviewed that request against testimony and reports showing the parents' compliance with services and the children's stability.
The court admitted the court report and attachments without objection after Ms. Nastasia Thomas, counsel for the department, moved to admit them. The judge then announced that terminating jurisdiction was appropriate and that an order would be prepared. The court did not impose further court-ordered services at the hearing.
The record includes service providers named in testimony: My Family Together (FRP), Lifeways (in-home therapy), DV counseling programs, Catholic Charities (previously engaged by the father), and local employers referenced by the parents. The hearing also noted practical details used to assess safety, including the mother's corrected work schedule (3:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.), use of a neighbor and the children's older siblings for morning assistance, and that the father maintains regular parenting time and is working to secure stable housing.
The judge closed the review by saying the court would prepare an order to end jurisdiction. No formal vote count was recorded because the decision was entered by the court rather than by a deliberative body.
